Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• bncc_listarB
  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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, return format, or error behavior. Only the listing action is implied, leaving significant 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 relatively concise with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence, followed by structured parameter explanations. Each sentence contributes value, though the parameter block could be slightly more compact.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It explains inputs but does not describe return format, pagination behavior, ordering, or error handling. For a listing tool, this is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

  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%, but the description adds clear semantics for all parameters: 'componente' is required with example, 'ano' can be empty for all years, 'etapa' for disambiguation, and 'limite' max results with default. This compensates well for the missing schema 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 lists skills of a component+year cut, including thematic unit and knowledge object. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like bncc_buscar (search) or bncc_estatisticas (statistics).

  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 parameter examples but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusionary criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the definition alone.

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

• bncc_buscarA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions accent-insensitive search, which adds behavioral insight, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits. The search behavior is implicitly non-destructive, but more detail would improve transparency.

  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 with a single-line summary followed by a clean bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

  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 description covers parameters well but does not describe the output format or return values, which is important given no output schema. For a search tool with six optional parameters, the agent might benefit from knowing the result structure (e.g., list of skill objects).

  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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, default, and allowed values (e.g., 'ano' accepts range '69'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults, though some parameters like 'etapa' and 'componente' lack enumerations.

  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 searches for skills by keyword with accent-insensitive matching and optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('busca') and resource ('habilidades'), and the filter parameters distinguish it from siblings like bncc_listar or bncc_lookup.

  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 explains filter options but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., bncc_listar, bncc_lookup). It does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

• bncc_estatisticasA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read-only aggregation operation (resumo, contagem), which is likely benign, but it does not explicitly state safety, auth needs, or side effects.

  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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and what it returns (counts). Lack of output format details is a minor gap but acceptable for this simple 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?

  There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline for zero parameters is 4.

  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 it provides a summary of the collection, counting skills by stage and component, and how many are in the Focus Map. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bncc_buscar (search) and bncc_listar (list).

  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 for getting statistics but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or context are provided, making it adequate but not explicit.

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

• bncc_lookupA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses output contents (fields, prioritization layer) but does not mention error handling, case sensitivity, or prerequisites. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

  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?

  Concise yet informative: two sentences with examples, no fluff. Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose.

  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?

  Coverage is high for a simple tool: explains output contents thoroughly. Lacks error behavior or return format, but these are minor given the single-parameter, read-only nature.

  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?

  Schema has no description for parameter 'codigo' (0% coverage). Description compensates excellently with examples ('EF06MA01') and explains code format, adding significant 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?

  Description clearly states tool returns full record of a BNCC skill by code, with examples and details on included fields. Distinguishes from siblings like bncc_buscar (search) and bncc_listar (list) by specifying exact code lookup.

  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?

  Implies use for exact code lookup via example codes, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like bncc_buscar or bncc_listar. Sibling names provide context but description lacks direct guidance.

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

• bncc_mapa_de_focoA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must self-disclose behavior. It describes the tool as querying a dataset and returning prioritized skills, which implies read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe, nor does it mention any authorization or rate limits. Given the tool's nature, the description is adequate but not highly transparent.

  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: first sentence states the function, second paragraph clarifies scope, and an 'Args' section explains parameters. It is concise with no redundant information, though the second paragraph could be slightly shorter.

  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 the tool has 3 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return content (prioritized skills with pedagogical layer), parameter defaults and usage, and coverage limitations. It does not detail return format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

  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% (no property descriptions in input schema), so the description provides essential context: examples for 'componente' and 'ano', and the default value for 'limite'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and title fields, compensating for the lack of schema 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 returns prioritized skills from the BNCC Focus Map with pedagogical layers. It specifies the covered subjects (Língua Portuguesa, Matemática, Ciências, História, Geografia) and explicitly lists uncovered areas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bncc_buscar or bncc_listar.

  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 guidance on when to use the tool by enumerating which subjects and grade levels are covered, and explicitly states what is NOT covered (e.g., Art, Physical Education). It advises that empty parameters return all items. While it doesn't name sibling tools directly, the coverage details help the agent decide if 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.