Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_governed_jobA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive flags. The description adds meaningful context: 'public state' indicates visibility, 'owned by this client' hints at access control, and 'current' implies no waiting. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundant information.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  For a simple getter with strong annotations and a clear parameter schema, the description covers the essentials: what is read, ownership, and currency. Without an output schema, it does not specify the exact response structure, but this is not critical for this tool.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The tool description itself does not mention parameters. However, the schema description for job_id is 100% covered and includes critical guidance ('Never invent it'), so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

  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 the tool reads the current public state and result of a specific job, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('BailingHub job'). It naturally distinguishes from siblings by contrasting read (get) with create (submit) and likely wait/block operations.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  Usage context is implied by the verb 'read' and 'current' (non-blocking), but there is no explicit guidance like 'Use this to poll status' or 'Do not use to create jobs'. Sibling names help, but the description itself doesn't clarify when to choose this over wait_for_governed_job.

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

• submit_governed_jobA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond the annotations, it discloses that BailingHub applies configured reach, risk, approval-intent, rate-limit, and audit controls, and that the downstream system still performs final authorization. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the destructive/idempotent hints.

  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?

  Three concise sentences front-load the core action, then explain governance behavior. Every sentence contributes new information with no redundant wording.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  The description covers the governance pipeline and final-authorization caveat, and sibling tools suggest follow-up retrieval. It does not describe return values or error/rejection behavior, but the provided annotations and schema are rich enough for a submit action.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions already explain request_id as an idempotency key and input as untrusted task text. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 names a specific action ('Submit a business-system action') and resource/route ('operator-configured BailingHub route'), clearly distinguishing from the sibling get/wait tools. It communicates the submission nature and governance context in one sentence.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for submitting a governed business action but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_governed_job or wait_for_governed_job, nor mention when not to use it. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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

• wait_for_governed_jobA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that a timeout returns the latest state and never resubmits the business action, clarifying timeout semantics and reinforcing idempotency beyond the annotation hints.

  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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that state the primary action and timeout behavior with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple wait tool.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the wait behavior, timeout result, and non-resubmission guarantee, but does not explicitly describe successful return values; however, the mention of 'latest state' partially addresses the return concept.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Both parameters have complete schema descriptions, including job_id's origin and max_wait_seconds bounds. The description itself adds no new parameter-level detail beyond mentioning a bounded period, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

  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 the tool polls a BailingHub job for a bounded period, using the specific verb 'poll' and resource 'BailingHub job'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (submit_governed_job and get_governed_job) by emphasizing bounded waiting and non-resubmission.

  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 implies usage after submitting a job to wait for its completion, contrasting with get_governed_job by highlighting bounded polling and no resubmission. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling context makes the intended use clear.

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