Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyzeC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns data (candidate moves, evaluations, PV) but doesn't describe performance characteristics (e.g., computation time, resource usage), error handling, or any side effects. For an analysis tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 extremely concise—a single sentence in Japanese that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action ('analyze SFEN') and avoids any redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., depth/multipv constraints). While concise, it lacks the detail needed for an agent to effectively use this tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'SFEN' implicitly and doesn't describe any of the 5 parameters (sfen, depth, multipv, threads, forceMove) or their effects on the analysis. The description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the parameter names suggest, failing to address the coverage gap.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing SFEN (Shogi Forsyth–Edwards Notation) to return candidate moves (MultiPV), evaluation values, and PV (principal variation). It uses specific verbs ('analyze' and 'return') and identifies the resource (SFEN positions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eval_at' or 'ping', which prevents a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eval_at'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases (e.g., game analysis, move exploration). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

• eval_atC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and returning results, but lacks details on computational behavior (e.g., performance impact, rate limits), error handling, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective usage.

  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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool effectively.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic information about parameters like 'sfen,' 'move,' 'depth,' 'multipv,' or 'threads.' It doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the analysis, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'analyze and return the evaluation after a specific move in the current position.' It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('current position after a specific move'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'ping,' which could provide similar or related functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'ping,' nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its effectiveness in tool selection.

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

• pingB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool always returns 'pong,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, latency, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 extremely concise—a single sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the key information ('health check') and avoids any redundant or verbose language, making it highly efficient.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, simple purpose), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and behavior but lacks details on usage context or advanced behavioral traits. With no annotations or output schema, it meets the minimum viable standard but could be more informative.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition and focuses on the tool's purpose.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'ヘルスチェック（常に pong を返す）' translates to 'Health check (always returns pong).' This specifies the verb ('health check') and the resource/outcome ('always returns pong'), making it distinct from siblings like 'analyze' or 'eval_at.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'status' or 'health'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like system monitoring, connectivity testing, or prerequisites. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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