Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• stop_departuresA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by mentioning real-time delays, internal stop-name lookup, and the candidate-list response when multiple stops match. This goes beyond the schema's parameter definitions, though it does not cover all edge cases (e.g., invalid inputs, no departures found).

  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?

  Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, input options, and ambiguity handling. No fluff or repetition of schema info. The description is front-loaded with the primary function and scales well.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description does not specify the structure of returned departures (e.g., fields like line, time, delay), which is a notable gap. It also omits error-handling behavior. The core purpose is clear, but the lack of return-format details makes it only moderately 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the OR relationship between stopId and stopName and the disambiguation behavior, but it does not add meaningfully to the numberOfDepartures parameter beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it slightly enhances but does not fully compensate beyond the baseline.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('next departures from a Helsinki public-transport stop'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like geocode or plan_journey. The scope is precise (Helsinki transit, real-time delays), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  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 this tool (to obtain departures from a stop) and explains the two accepted input modes, including a note about ambiguity resolution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use plan_journey for route planning), so it falls short of a 5.

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

• plan_journeyA
  4.3/5.0
  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 internal geocoding, return structure (up to 5 itineraries with legs, modes, line numbers, real-time status), default departure time of 'now,' and the requirement for ISO 8601 timestamps with offset. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only planner, though it does not mention error handling or reversibility.

  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 three sentences: first states the purpose, second covers inputs and outputs, third addresses departure time. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundant wording.

  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?

  The tool has moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema). The description sufficiently explains input types, geocoding behavior, return format (itineraries with legs, modes, line numbers, real-time status), and time defaults. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a complete and self-contained description.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context—internal geocoding, default departure time, and output details—but these are largely redundant with the schema's per-property descriptions. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plan a public-transport journey between two places in Greater Helsinki.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on journey planning, while mentioning internal geocoding for endpoints. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

  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: use for public-transport journeys in Greater Helsinki, accepts place names/addresses, returns itineraries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like geocode or stop_departures, but the purpose is well-scoped enough to avoid confusion with the siblings.

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

• geocodeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does well by describing the output: 'Returns up to 10 candidates with Finnish and Swedish names, coordinates, and a confidence score.' However, it doesn't mention error cases or ambiguous query behavior, leaving a minor transparency gap.

  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 front-load the purpose, then state the output, then give usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 2-parameter geocoding tool, the description covers purpose, output format, and usage context relative to siblings. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit summary of returned fields.

  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% for both parameters, so the description leverages the schema's descriptions. It reinforces that query accepts 'address, place, or landmark' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

  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: 'Look up coordinates for an address, place, or landmark in the Greater Helsinki area.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_journey and stop_departures.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this before plan_journey when you only have a place name.' This names the alternative tool and provides a clear when-to-use directive, which is exactly what agents need.

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