Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_child_temperamentA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the tool calculates and returns a profile, implying a non-destructive read-style operation, but it does not disclose potential caveats such as reliance on assumptions, timezone handling, or whether any external computation or persistence occurs.

  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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists key output categories. It stays within a reasonable length while conveying the tool's purpose and expected results without 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?

  The description is fairly complete for a tool with no output schema, listing the main return components. It could be stronger by explicitly guiding an agent toward when this tool is preferred over its siblings, but the core functionality is adequately covered.

  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 schema already documents all parameters including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

  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 clear, specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('a child's Four Pillars of Destiny'), and enumerates the output components (dominant element, personality traits, learning style, parenting tips). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_siblings and explain_five_elements.

  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 when to use it: when a child's Saju-based temperament profile is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as compare_siblings for sibling comparisons.

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

• compare_siblingsA
  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 behavioral transparency burden. It communicates the intended outcome (understanding differences, compatibilities, parenting) but does not disclose how the comparison is performed, whether birthTime is required for accuracy, or what the output format looks like. For a read-only analysis tool, this is a moderate 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?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core verb 'Compare' and the resource 'Saju temperament profiles.' Every clause adds meaningful context, and there is no redundant or filler content.

  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 input schema thoroughly documents the parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns. The description does not specify whether the output is a textual report, a structured profile, or a list of recommendations. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations and two nested objects.

  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 schema has 100% description coverage over all parameters, so a baseline score of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating that the two objects represent siblings. It does not clarify optional vs. required behavior for birthTime or any edge cases.

  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: comparing Saju temperament profiles of two siblings. The verb 'Compare' is specific, and the resource 'two siblings' makes it distinguishable from the sibling tools (analyze_child_temperament for individual profiles, explain_five_elements for element theory). The purpose is further clarified by mentioning differences, compatibilities, and parenting approaches.

  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 when the user wants to compare two siblings, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives like analyze_child_temperament for single children. An agent can infer the context from the phrase 'two siblings,' but there is no direct routing guidance.

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

• explain_five_elementsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It covers what the explanation addresses (personality, learning, development) and the cultural framework (Korean Saju), which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose output format, caveats, or whether the explanation is individualized, so it only partially satisfies 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?

  A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and wastes no words. Every phrase ('specific Five Element', 'child's personality, learning, and development', 'Korean Saju astrology') contributes essential meaning.

  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?

  For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: the agent knows what the tool does, what the parameter means, and the domain. The only notable gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and no indication of response structure, but the simple nature of an explanation tool makes these minor.

  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% and the enum fully documents valid values. The description adds context that the element is interpreted in Korean Saju astrology for a child's development, but does not need to add more since the parameter is already well-described.

  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 the specific verb 'Explain' with a clear resource ('a specific Five Element (오행)') and delineates the scope ('for a child's personality, learning, and development in Korean Saju astrology'). This is distinct from sibling tools analyze_child_temperament and compare_siblings, which focus on analysis and comparison rather than explanation of an element.

  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 provides context that this tool is for explaining an element in Korean Saju astrology, but it never states when to choose it over analyze_child_temperament or compare_siblings, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a child's personality, learning, and development.'

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