Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• end_conversationC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'clean up resources', hinting at resource management, but lacks details on effects (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on history), permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('End an existing conversation') and adds a secondary function ('clean up resources') concisely. Every word earns its place, making it highly structured and easy to parse.

  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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like behavioral outcomes (e.g., what 'clean up' entails), error handling, or return values. For a tool that likely alters state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'conversationId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  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 action ('End') and resource ('an existing conversation') with an additional function ('clean up resources'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_conversation_history' (read) and 'send_message' (send), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from 'start_conversation' (create vs. terminate).

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It implies usage for terminating conversations but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., conversation must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for active chats), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'start_conversation'. The context is minimal, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

• send_messageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends a message but doesn't describe what happens after sending (e.g., whether it triggers agent processing, returns a response, or creates side effects). It mentions conversation continuation via conversationId but doesn't explain behavioral implications of using this parameter.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple messaging tool and front-loads the core functionality.

  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?

  For a messaging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after message sending (response format, agent processing behavior), nor does it provide context about conversation lifecycle or relationships with sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides about message content or conversation continuation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('Send a message') and target ('to the Copilot Studio Agent'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (end_conversation, get_conversation_history, start_conversation) which all operate on conversations with the same agent.

  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?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a conversation must be started first), nor does it explain the relationship with sibling tools like start_conversation or end_conversation.

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

• start_conversationC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the action but doesn't explain what 'starting a conversation' entails—whether it creates a persistent session, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the expected response format is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly efficient.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting a conversation (e.g., returns a conversation ID, initiates a session) or address behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely creates a stateful interaction, this leaves critical context missing.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'initialMessage' documented as 'Optional first message to send'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as message format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

  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 action ('Start a new conversation') and the target ('with the Copilot Studio Agent'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'get_conversation_history', 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 'send_message' (which might be for ongoing conversations) or 'end_conversation'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or explicit exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

• get_conversation_historyB
  3.1/5.0
  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. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes metadata like timestamps. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Retrieve message history for a conversation'. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's function.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, return format) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully inform the agent, but it meets the bare minimum for a basic retrieval operation.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('conversationId' and 'limit') with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'conversationId' represents or how 'limit' affects ordering. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 as 'Retrieve message history for a conversation', which includes a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('message history for a conversation'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_message' or 'start_conversation' by focusing on historical data retrieval rather than interaction or initiation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar retrieval tools that might exist in other contexts.

  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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid conversation ID), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time messages), or compare it to sibling tools like 'end_conversation' or 'send_message'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit context.

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