Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_transport_stopsB
  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. It mentions the tool 'finds' stops and returns an 'API response,' but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format entails. For a tool with no annotations, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter and return sections are structured clearly, with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Returns' line is vague ('API response with transport stops'), slightly reducing efficiency.

  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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output. It's adequate for basic use but incomplete for full agent understanding, especially without annotations to cover safety or performance traits.

  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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the format for 'location_coord' (coordinates in 'LONGITUDE:LATITUDE:EPSG:4326'), enumerates possible values for 'stop_type' ('BUS_POINT', 'POI_POINT', 'GIS_POINT'), and clarifies 'radius' as 'Search radius in meters.' This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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: 'Find transport stops around a specific location.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('transport stops'), and the scope ('around a specific location'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_departure_monitor' or 'get_transport_alerts', 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. There's no mention of sibling tools or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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

• get_transport_alertsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 mentions the API source but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, pagination, or what happens when no alerts are found. The return type 'dict: API response' is vague and doesn't explain the structure or content of the response.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for the mot_type options. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters. The only minor inefficiency is repeating 'to filter by' for multiple parameters, but overall it's front-loaded and efficient.

  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 read-only tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent doesn't know about rate limits, authentication, error handling, or the structure of returned data. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the date format (DD-MM-YYYY), default behavior (today's date), enumerates all mot_type options with clear mappings, and provides examples (e.g., '020T1' for line_number). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 verb 'Get' and resource 'transport alerts from the Transport NSW API', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_transport_stops' or 'get_departure_monitor', which likely serve different purposes (finding stops vs monitoring departures vs getting alerts).

  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 the sibling tools 'find_transport_stops' or 'get_departure_monitor'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. The only contextual information is the parameter descriptions, which don't constitute usage guidelines.

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

• get_departure_monitorA
  3.6/5.0
  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. It mentions using 'direct HTTP requests to the Transport NSW API', which hints at external API calls, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'simplified list' means in the Returns section. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by an Args section with bullet-point details and a Returns section. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the 'This function uses direct HTTP requests...' sentence could be integrated more tightly or omitted if redundant with context.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and a basic return type ('Simplified list of departure information'), but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or API constraints. For a tool with moderate complexity (5 parameters, external API), it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

  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. It provides detailed semantics for all 5 parameters, including formats (e.g., 'DD-MM-YYYY' for date, 'HH:MM' for time), defaults, and a clear enum-like explanation for 'mot_type' with transport mode options. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain all edge cases (e.g., what 'global stop ID' entails).

  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 specific action ('Get real-time departure monitor information'), the resource ('for a specific stop'), and the source ('from the Trip Planner API'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'find_transport_stops' (which likely finds stops) and 'get_transport_alerts' (which gets alerts rather than departures).

  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 by specifying it's for departure information from a stop, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_transport_stops' or 'get_transport_alerts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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