Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• upsert_definition_toolA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that this is a mutation operation and adds a meaningful design trait: owner_agent is identity data, not code, allowing re-homing without rebuild. However, with no annotations provided, it does not describe overwrite/replacement semantics, permissions, or other side effects of updating an existing definition.

  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: two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by a single valuable design nuance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

  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?

  The presence of a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions reduces the burden on the description. Still, because annotations are absent, the description should clarify update behavior more explicitly, such as whether an update replaces or merges the existing definition. It is adequate but not fully complete.

  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 already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that owner_agent is data rather than code, which is not stated in the schema itself.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or update a report definition.' This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_reports_tool, get_spec_tool, save_output_tool, and get_output_tool.

  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 intended use is implied by the resource and operation, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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

• get_spec_toolA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies what the return payload contains (prompt + source config) and the invocation context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens for unknown report names, or any auth requirements. 'Return' implies a safe read, but it is not explicit.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource; the second adds valuable contextual information about the caller. Every word earns its place.

  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 one-parameter read tool with an existing output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it returns and when to use it. Minor gaps such as not-found behavior or explicit read-only assurance are acceptable for a simple getter, but would make it more complete.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including an example. The description adds only a slight restatement ('named report') and does not provide additional semantic depth such as naming conventions, validation rules, or behavior for missing names.

  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 specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource: 'gather spec (prompt + source config) for a report definition.' The second sentence adds a concrete invocation context (autonomous gatherer callback), which makes its distinct role relative to sibling tools obvious.

  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 clearly states when this tool is used: the autonomous gatherer calls it on callback to learn what to collect for the named report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the callback context is strong enough to guide an agent without ambiguity.

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

• list_reports_toolA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states this is a listing operation that 'returns each definition' with specific fields, implying a non-mutating read behavior. It does not mention edge cases or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

  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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the return fields.

  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?

  With zero parameters, an output schema present, and a clear statement of purpose and returned fields, the description fully supports correct invocation and selection. Nothing essential is missing.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that it lists 'all' definitions and returns each one, making it clear there are no filters or arguments required.

  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 states a specific action ('List all report definitions') and a specific resource ('the catalog'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools, but the 'all' scope and report-definition focus distinguish it from the get/save/upsert siblings.

  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 intended use is implied: use it when you need to enumerate all report definitions in the catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like get_spec_tool or get_output_tool.

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

• save_output_toolA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about payload expectations (source URL required for citation) but doesn't disclose side effects such as whether existing output is overwritten, how status transitions are used, or any write permissions needed.

  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 three sentences are dense and relevant: a one-line purpose, a workflow placement, and a payload data contract. No filler or repetition of schema details.

  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 orients the agent in the pipeline (gatherer → this tool → compiler) and states the one non-obvious payload requirement. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so missing return-value details are not a gap. It falls short of complete only because it doesn't specify the effect of repeated saves.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the payload's source-URL requirement with 'should carry its own source URL,' slightly strengthening the schema's weaker 'ideally carrying,' but it doesn't add meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a gathered report output.' It further defines the tool's role as the place where the gatherer writes findings, which clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_output_tool and definition tools.

  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?

  States a clear usage context: the gatherer should write findings here after sweeping sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or negative cases, but the workflow cue is enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

• get_output_toolA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default behavior (most recent output), the date-specific behavior, and the fallback semantics of 'latest output gathered on a specific date.' This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema expresses, though it does not cover edge cases like missing outputs.

  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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the only additional sentence explains the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

  For a low-complexity read tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, the default behavior, the optional date behavior, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already provided elsewhere, and no critical invocation detail is 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?

  Both parameters are already well described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the default selection behavior and how gathered_date changes the result, but it does not significantly expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 ('Read') and resource ('gathered report output'), and it adds the purpose ('for compiling a report'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by clarifying it retrieves outputs, whereas list_reports_tool, get_spec_tool, and save_output_tool imply different purposes.

  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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'for compiling a report' and by the optional date parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not describe exclusions or mention sibling tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate moment to call it.

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