Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_kakaocloud_apiC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or side effects. It only explains the function, leaving the agent uninformed about operational constraints.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is short and to the point, with a docstring style. It uses minimal text to convey the core function, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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 presence of an output schema, the lack of return value description is acceptable. However, for a search tool, additional context about result ordering, limits, or search behavior would improve completeness.

  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 0%, but the description adds example queries for the 'query' parameter, which helps understanding. However, it doesn't provide full semantic richness beyond examples, such as expected format or accepted values.

  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 searches for KakaoCloud APIs by keyword and returns related endpoints. It uses specific verb 'search' and resource 'API'. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_api_detail, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention what scenarios are appropriate or when to use other tools like get_api_detail. No exclusions or comparisons provided.

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

• get_service_overviewB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations are absent, leaving the description to handle behavioral transparency. The description only states the retrieval action, with no information about read-only nature, auth requirements, latency, or side effects. Behavioral traits beyond the basic action are not disclosed.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise with two sentences and includes a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

  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 presence of an output schema (not detailed here), the description need not fully explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions, permission requirements, or how the tool fits with siblings. The 0% schema coverage and no annotations leave gaps in completeness.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds examples of valid service values (e.g., 'bcs', 'vm') and explains that the parameter is a service ID or alias, providing context beyond the bare schema. However, format constraints or default behaviors are not specified.

  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 retrieves an overview and endpoint list for a KakaoCloud service. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_api_detail or search_kakaocloud_api, which focus on different aspects.

  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 when an overview or endpoint list is needed, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_api_detail or get_auth_guide. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

• get_workflowB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, or any constraints. As a read operation with no clear side effects, the description should still note if it is safe or destructive, but it does not.

  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: one sentence stating purpose and one line for the parameter. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

  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?

  For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description gives the core idea but omits behavioral context or any caveats. It is functional but minimal.

  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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'task'. The description provides examples (e.g., 'VM 인스턴스 생성') and a brief description ('작업 설명'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on format or constraints.

  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 retrieves the entire API call flow for a specific task, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_api_detail (details of a single API) and get_service_overview.

  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. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• get_api_detailA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'detailed specifications'. It only says it queries specs, which is insufficient for full transparency.

  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 concise with a single purpose sentence followed by parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful example values. No redundant or irrelevant content.

  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 simplicity (2 string params, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks usage context, output structure hints (though output schema covers that), and any explanation of 'detailed specifications'. Missing guidance on when to use over siblings.

  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?

  Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by providing concrete examples for both parameters: service ('bcs', 'vm', 'vpc') and endpoint_id ('create-instance', 'list-volumes'). This helps the agent understand plausible values beyond the schema's plain string type.

  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 queries detailed specifications of a specific KakaoCloud API endpoint ('특정 카카오클라우드 API 엔드포인트의 상세 스펙을 조회한다'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_auth_guide', 'get_service_overview', 'get_workflow', and 'search_kakaocloud_api' by focusing on a specific endpoint's specs.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or conditions for effectiveness. Sibling tools are present but not referenced.

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

• get_auth_guideA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description implies a read-only retrieval but does not explicitly confirm safety or side effects.

  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?

  Single sentence with clear action and content; no unnecessary words.

  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?

  Output schema exists; description is adequate for a simple reference tool, though could mention it's a guide.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%; description adds meaningful context about the content (auth, tokens, examples).

  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?

  Description specifies the tool returns authentication methods, token issuance, and code examples, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_api_detail' or 'get_service_overview'.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied but not stated.

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