Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_wait_timeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explicitly stating the return value structure: 'wait_time_minutes is None when no wait is posted' and guides interpretation via 'check status to tell those apart.' It also mentions the tool performs name resolution and returns resolved names. The only minor gap is not disclosing any potential side effects or network calls, which are likely irrelevant here, but overall this is a strong behavioral disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (summary, usage context, args, returns). It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary details. It is appropriately sized given the complexity and provides all necessary information without fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's relative simplicity (2 string params, no output schema), this description is complete. It explains return semantics (None case and status field), gives examples of accepted input formats, and lists all valid park values. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: park gets a full list of accepted values and the concept of aliases/entity IDs, while ride explains fuzzy matching behavior with examples. This goes far beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current standby wait time, in minutes, for a Disney ride.' It goes beyond a simple definition by specifying the unit, the scope (standby only), and explicitly excluding Lightning Lane and virtual queue times, which also differentiates its behavior from siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a direct usage example ('use this for "how long is the line for X" questions') and clarifies what the tool does not cover (Lightning Lane, virtual queue). While it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling tool get_ride_status by name or provide when-to-use-exclusions beyond wait time, the context is clear enough for typical scenarios, though it could be more explicit about when to prefer the sibling.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_ride_statusA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the data is live from ThemeParks.wiki, what is returned (status code, plain-English gloss, standby wait, park hours), and that wait times may be None when not posted. It also explains fuzzy ride-name matching, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the key use case appears first, followed by the live data source, then the two arguments, then the detailed return value shape. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context for the agent to call the tool correctly: park values, ride matching behavior, semantic meaning of status and wait, and the shape of the response. It lacks the exact status-code enumerations, but the gloss is mentioned so the agent can interpret the result.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It explains that park accepts names, aliases, or entity IDs, lists valid Disney parks, and clarifies that ride accepts natural-language names and near-misses. This is far richer than the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a precise verb and resource: 'Check whether a Disney ride is currently operating, down, or closed.' This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from get_wait_time, since the core output is ride status rather than only a wait time.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explicitly says to use this for 'is X broken / open / running right now' questions, which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly tell the agent to use get_wait_time when only wait time is needed, but the primary use case is clear enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.