Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scan_g1_devicesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses key behavioral traits: it performs a BLE scan (implying it may take time and consume resources), returns structured results including success/error status and device properties, and specifies the device name pattern 'G1_'. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or destructive effects, but for a scan tool, this is reasonably transparent given the lack of annotations.

  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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, then details the return format in a bulleted list, and adds a note with behavioral context. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

  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 low complexity (0 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (implied by the return description), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the return structure, and key behavioral aspects like the BLE scan and device pattern. No output schema is explicitly provided, but the return description compensates adequately.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

  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: 'Scan for available G1 devices.' It specifies the verb ('Scan') and resource ('G1 devices'), and the note adds that it performs a BLE scan for devices with names containing 'G1_'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect_g1_device' or 'get_g1_connection_status' beyond the scanning action.

  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 stating it 'performs an actual BLE scan for devices with names containing "G1_" pattern,' which suggests when to use it (to discover G1 devices). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like checking connection status with sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or named alternatives.

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

• get_g1_connection_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 effectively describes the tool's read-only nature by specifying it 'returns' status information without indicating any mutations. However, it does not address potential side effects, error handling beyond the 'error' field, or performance characteristics like latency or rate limits.

  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 and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by a detailed return specification. However, the 'Note' section is somewhat redundant with the 'Returns' section, repeating information about connection state and device details, which slightly reduces efficiency.

  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 complexity (status retrieval with detailed output), the description is complete. It fully explains the return values, compensating for the lack of annotations and output schema by detailing each field in the JSON response. The context signals (0 parameters, output schema true) are adequately addressed, making the tool's behavior clear for an AI agent.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, detailing the return structure comprehensively. This adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of each field in the response, such as what 'pending_messages_count' represents.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get current connection status and device info') and identifies the exact resource (G1 device connection status). It distinguishes from siblings like connect_g1_device, disconnect_g1_device, scan_g1_devices, and send_g1_message by focusing on status retrieval rather than connection management or communication.

  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 implies usage context through the detailed return structure, suggesting this tool is for checking connection state and device details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like scan_g1_devices (for discovery) or send_g1_message (for communication), and does not specify prerequisites such as requiring a prior connection attempt.

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

• connect_g1_deviceA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 that this establishes a BLE connection and discovers specific services/characteristics, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if it disconnects existing connections), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling beyond the return structure. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note), front-loaded purpose, and no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, followed by parameter details, return values, and behavioral notes. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given 1 parameter with no schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It fully documents the parameter and return structure, and adds behavioral context about BLE and Nordic UART. However, as a connection tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more operational details like timeout behavior or connection persistence.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'address', including format requirements (XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX with hexadecimal characters), an example ('AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF'), and clarifies it's a Bluetooth MAC address for the G1 device.

  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 ('Connect to a G1 device by address') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'disconnect_g1_device', 'get_g1_connection_status', 'scan_g1_devices', and 'send_g1_message'. It specifies the resource (G1 device) and mechanism (Bluetooth/BLE connection).

  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 implies usage context by mentioning BLE connection and Nordic UART service discovery, which suggests this is for establishing communication with a specific device. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'scan_g1_devices' for discovery or 'get_g1_connection_status' for checking state, nor does it mention prerequisites like device availability.

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

• send_g1_messageA
  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 carries full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the Nordic BLE UART protocol usage, 2-second timeout behavior, automatic whitespace removal, and that all messages are treated as commands. It also details the response structure and error conditions comprehensively.

  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?

  Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note, Examples) and front-loaded core purpose. Some redundancy exists (whitespace removal mentioned twice), and the examples section could be slightly more concise while maintaining clarity. Overall efficient but with minor room for optimization.

  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 a single-parameter tool with no annotations but with output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral details (protocol, timeout, command nature), return structure, and practical examples. The output schema handles return value documentation, allowing the description to focus on operational context.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information. It explains hex_data format requirements, whitespace handling, valid character constraints, and provides multiple concrete examples showing different input patterns and their corresponding byte interpretations.

  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 ('Send a message') and target resource ('connected G1 device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect/disconnect/scan devices. It explicitly identifies the tool's function as sending data to a specific hardware device.

  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 about when to use this tool (after device connection, for command communication), but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The examples show typical usage patterns, but no explicit guidance about prerequisites like needing a connected device first.

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

• disconnect_g1_deviceA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It details the multi-step process: closes BLE connection, cleans up resources, stops heartbeat mechanism, and resets connection state. This goes far beyond just stating the action.

  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?

  Perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, returns documentation, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value - no redundancy or wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core action first.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations but with output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains the action, detailed behavioral consequences, and documents the return structure, making the output schema documentation redundant but helpful for reinforcement.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior.

  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 ('Disconnect from') and target resource ('the current G1 device'), distinguishing it from siblings like connect_g1_device and get_g1_connection_status. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying it's about BLE connection termination.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states when to use ('Disconnect from the current G1 device') and implies when not to use (when no device is connected). The sibling tools provide clear alternatives for other operations like connecting, checking status, scanning, or sending messages.

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