Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_stateB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns state, but doesn't describe what 'state' encompasses, whether it's cached or real-time, if there are permissions or rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the action and return value. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly labeling sections like 'Purpose' and 'Returns'.

  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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation in the description), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'state' means, how it relates to siblings, or behavioral details, making it incomplete for full understanding despite the structured data support.

  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 schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools as per guidelines.

  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 with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current state from the context bus'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools (toggle_tracking, update_state), which would require mentioning that this is a read-only operation versus their likely mutation functions.

  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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention its read-only nature in contrast to update_state (which likely modifies state) or toggle_tracking (which likely changes tracking behavior), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual triggers for invocation.

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

• toggle_trackingB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool enables or disables tracking but doesn't describe what 'state tracking' entails, whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though they could be integrated more seamlessly. There's minimal waste, but the formatting as separate lines might slightly reduce flow.

  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's moderate complexity (a toggle operation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

  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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'enabled' by explaining it determines 'Whether tracking should be enabled.' This clarifies the boolean's purpose beyond the schema's type definition. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adequately compensates, though it could specify default states or effects more explicitly.

  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: 'Enable or disable state tracking.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that indicates a toggle action on tracking functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_state' or 'update_state' which might handle related but 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_state' or 'update_state', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• update_stateB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a success message return, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or side effects. For a state-mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by categorized Arg and Return sections. Each sentence earns its place by defining the tool and its parameters. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main description, but overall it's well-organized and concise.

  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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: Success message'), the description is moderately complete. It covers all parameters semantically and states the return, but for a state-update tool, it should more explicitly address mutation behavior, idempotency, or error cases to be fully adequate.

  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 compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear semantic meaning (e.g., 'summary: A summary of what has been done so far'). It adds value beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

  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 action ('Update the context bus state') and specifies what is being updated ('with the current agent's information'). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_state' by being a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'toggle_tracking'. The purpose is specific and actionable.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_state' or 'toggle_tracking'. The description implies it's for updating state with agent information, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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