Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• evaluateB
  3.3/5.0
  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 reveals supported operations, array literals, and variable-passing mechanics, but omits the return format (e.g., number vs array), error behavior for invalid expressions, and how precision affects the result.

  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 a single dense paragraph with no wasted words; the first sentence states purpose, followed by operators, functions, constants, variables, and an example. While the long function list could be better structured with bullet points, it is still efficient and 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 three parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input syntax and capabilities. However, it does not explain the return value shape (especially for array operations) or edge-case behavior, leaving some gaps for a complex tool.

  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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how to use the 'variables' parameter (e.g., { x: 2 }) and by detailing valid expression syntax with an example, exceeding the baseline.

  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?

  States 'Evaluate a mathematical expression in one call' with a clear verb and resource. The extensive list of operators, functions, and constants further clarifies the tool's exact scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools simplify and derivative, so it stops short of 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 rich 'how-to' guidance (supported operators, functions, variables, and an example) but no 'when-to-use' guidance. It does not mention alternatives like simplify or derivative or indicate scenarios where evaluation is preferred over them.

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

• derivativeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: differentiation with respect to a specified variable, treating other symbols as free constants, and simplifying the result. An example concretely illustrates the 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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the main definition, the example, and the behavioral note on constants/simplification. No wasted words.

  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 simple two-parameter differentiation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the purpose, gives an example, and discloses edge-case behavior (free constants, simplification). The absence of an output schema is compensated by the illustrative yield.

  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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of the variable ('with respect to') and providing a full example that maps parameters to an input/output pair.

  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 computes symbolic derivatives of a mathematical expression with respect to a variable, with a concrete example. This specific verb+resource pairing differentiates it from sibling tools like evaluate and simplify.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when a derivative is needed—through the example and explanation. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

• simplifyA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses heuristic behavior, the edge case of dropping constraints like x != 0 in 'x/x' simplifying to 1, and the tool's limitations (no expansion/factoring). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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, front-loaded with the action, and uses every sentence meaningfully. The note with a concrete example ('x/x' simplifies to 1) and explicit non-behaviors is efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and parameter semantics, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that free variables stay symbolic while values in 'variables' are folded in as constants, clarifying the intended interaction of the two parameters. This goes slightly beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

  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's function: 'Simplify a mathematical expression algebraically (collect like terms, fold constants).' It specifies the resource (mathematical expression) and the operation, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'evaluate' and 'derivative' by indicating it does not expand products or factor polynomials.

  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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for algebraic simplification) and what not to expect ('does not expand products or factor polynomials'). It implies behavior with variables ('values passed in 'variables' are folded in as known constants') but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use evaluate for numeric results,' so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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