Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• audit_trailB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the data source (local storage or cloud API) and that it is free, but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks important behavioral context.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second adds a key feature (returns from two sources) and a cost note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well front-loaded.

  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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return value format, pagination behavior, or how parameters interact (e.g., using receipt_id vs agent_id). More detail is needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  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?

  The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, meeting 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it provides contextual background about governance receipts and storage sources but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'governance audit trail', providing a specific action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving receipts, whereas siblings like 'govern_action' and 'compliance_check' involve different operations.

  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 mentions 'Free to use' regarding cost, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings (compliance_check, govern_action) or under what circumstances it is appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

• compliance_checkA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 a rate limit (10 checks per day) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or destructive. It also doesn't describe the output format or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a compliance check 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?

  The description is two sentences long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds constraints and scope. It is 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?

  Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple check tool. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., pass/fail, risk score) and any prerequisites for using the tool. It touches on constraints but not on usage context beyond the free tier.

  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?

  All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the framework enum and descriptions. Therefore, it meets the baseline for schema coverage.

  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 performs a 'quick compliance check against common AI governance frameworks', specifying the exact frameworks (EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001). The verb 'check' distinguishes it from sibling tools (audit_trail, govern_action) which imply deeper audit or 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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies a quick preliminary check but provides no guidance on when to prefer it over audit_trail or govern_action. The free tier limit is mentioned, which indirectly suggests usage constraints.

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

• govern_actionA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: capability check, policy evaluation, receipt generation, and cloud fallback when API key is set. No annotations exist, so description carries the full burden; it adequately informs about functionality without side-effect warnings.

  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-loaded with primary purpose followed by key behavioral detail (fallback mechanism). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

  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?

  Explains the return value (receipt) and process. Lacks detail on error conditions or policy failure handling. No output schema, but description suffices for basic understanding.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, earning no bonus.

  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 the tool governs any AI agent action, performing capability checks, policy evaluation, and generating a governance receipt. It distinguishes from sibling tools (audit_trail, compliance_check) by focusing on proactive governance with a receipt output.

  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 the tool is used for governing AI actions but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are suggested for different scenarios.

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