Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-current-weatherC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about behavioral traits: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 at just 6 words: 'Get current weather for a location'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.

  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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool does but provides no context about when to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. For a weather API tool that likely has rate limits and specific response formats, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

  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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or examples beyond the schema's documentation.

  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: 'Get current weather for a location'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current weather'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get-forecast', which likely provides future weather predictions rather than current conditions.

  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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'get-forecast', nor any context about when current weather data is appropriate versus forecast data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• get-forecastC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a forecast but omits critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a read operation without annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to clarifying the tool's function.

  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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what the forecast data includes (e.g., temperature, precipitation), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output, more contextual detail is needed to guide the agent adequately.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('city' and 'country'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a 'location' parameter, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('5-day weather forecast for a location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get-current-weather' tool, which prevents a score of 5, but it's specific enough to convey what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 the sibling 'get-current-weather' tool. It lacks any mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone. This minimal guidance is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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