Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• escalate_to_oncallC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'mark as urgent and reassign' without detailing side effects (e.g., notifications, status changes) 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  Single sentence is efficient but omits critical details; adequate but could include a brief second sentence without losing conciseness.

  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?

  Lacks output description and any mention of consequences or constraints (e.g., irreversibility), leaving the agent uninformed for correct invocation.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, and description adds no parameter details beyond names. 'reason' is not explained as the reason for urgency; clinic_id/appointment_id are self-evident but lack any validation context.

  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 action ('mark as urgent and reassign') and resource ('existing appointment'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like book_appointment or find_available_slot.

  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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., appointment must exist), and no conditions to avoid (e.g., already escalated).

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

• record_intakeB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations; description only states it persists and assigns triage level, but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, or how triage is determined.

  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?

  Single sentence of 15 words, no redundancy, efficient and direct.

  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?

  No output schema, no description of return value (e.g., triage level or record ID), insufficient to fully specify tool behavior.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Description mentions 'symptoms, severity, onset' but omits 'clinic_id', 'patient_id', and 'notes'. Schema coverage is 33%, leaving param gaps unaddressed.

  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 action ('persist') and the resource ('structured intake note') with key fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'book_appointment'.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• book_appointmentB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency behavior (returns original on repeat), which is useful for safe retries, but omits other behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or error states.

  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: one states the core purpose, the other adds critical idempotency detail. No wasted words.

  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 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return value, error handling, or scheduling constraints like business hours.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 29% (2/7 params described). The description does not add meaning for undocumented parameters (e.g., clinic_id, provider_id, patient_id, duration_minutes, reason) beyond their names, failing to compensate for low 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 that the tool creates an appointment for a patient with a provider, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_available_slot (which finds slots) and record_intake (which records intake).

  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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_available_slot, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• search_protocolsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ranked snippets that can be cited, which is informative, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately described for a simple read-only search.

  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 front-loaded sentences, each adding value: it states the action and the return format. No extraneous words.

  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 lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return structure beyond 'snippets', nor does it clarify the role of clinic_id. The tool requires more context for reliable use.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (clinic_id, query, limit). The agent must infer semantics solely from the parameter names and constraints, which is insufficient.

  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 performs keyword search over the clinic's protocol library and returns ranked snippets for citation, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools that handle appointments, escalation, slot finding, and intake recording.

  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 searching protocols via keyword, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

• find_available_slotB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'skips conflicts with existing appointments,' indicating a read-only, availability-checking behavior. However, it does not mention whether it requires authentication, whether it is idempotent, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is partial but not misleading.

  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 the main action. Every word serves a purpose: what it returns, the key filters, and the conflict avoidance. No fluff.

  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?

  Despite moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description omits important details: return format (list of slot times?), ordering, pagination, error conditions. The sibling 'book_appointment' suggests a workflow, but no linkage is provided. The description is too sparse for complete agent 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 description coverage is low (33%, only from/to have descriptions). The description adds meaning for specialty and date range, and mentions clinic_id filtering. But it does not explain duration_minutes or limit parameters. Given low coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

  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 'Return open appointment slots' with specific constraints ('given specialty in a date range', 'Filters by clinic_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'book_appointment' (booking) and 'record_intake' (recording). The verb and resource are immediately clear.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before booking an appointment or when an immediate slot is needed. It describes what it does but lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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