Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• climate_adaptation_guideD
  1.3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 does not disclose side effects, read/write nature, rate limits, or other behaviors. The vague 'resources' and 'DEMO' give no insight into what the tool actually does when invoked.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is extremely short, but conciseness requires informative efficiency. Here, the single sentence lacks substance and does not provide necessary details. It is under-informative rather than concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given two optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how inputs affect results, or any other behavior needed for correct usage.

  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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'region' or 'sector' at all. The parameter semantics are entirely absent, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to fill them.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states it provides Kenya climate adaptation resources for farmers and communities, which is specific in target audience and location, but 'resources' is vague and does not specify what kind of resources (e.g., information, tools). The 'DEMO' suffix suggests it may not be fully functional, further reducing clarity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  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. With siblings like climate_data_guide and conservation_areas, there is no differentiation or usage context provided. The description does not indicate typical use cases or prerequisites.

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

• environmental_rights_queryD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It fails to disclose behavior (e.g., read-only, returns information, demo limitations). 'DEMO' is ambiguous but suggests possible non-production status; no concrete details.

  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?

  Extremely concise at one sentence, but lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. Conciseness here trades off against clarity and completeness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the single parameter, no annotations, and existence of an output schema (unseen), the description should explain functionality, input meaning, and output nature. It does not; 'DEMO' suggests incompleteness.

  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?

  Input schema has one parameter 'topic' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description does not explain what the topic should be (e.g., format, allowed values), leaving the agent without guidance on valid inputs.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description states 'Environmental rights under Kenya Constitution 2010 Article 42' but lacks an active verb describing the tool's action. The addition of 'DEMO' further obscures purpose, making it unclear whether this is a functional query tool or a placeholder.

  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 compared to siblings (climate_adaptation_guide, climate_data_guide, conservation_areas, nema_permit_guide). The description does not indicate specific contexts or alternatives.

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

• climate_data_guideC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states it is a 'guide' and 'DEMO.' It does not disclose whether it retrieves real-time data, returns static text, or has any side effects. The 'DEMO' tag hints at limited functionality but 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is very short (two phrases), which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to provide essential information. It front-loads the domain but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

  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 an output schema (unseen), the description still needs to explain what the tool returns. It does not specify return format or whether it's a list, map, or text. For a guide-like tool with two parameters, more context is needed to use it correctly.

  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?

  The input schema has two parameters (data_type, county) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what values data_type expects (e.g., 'weather,' 'drought,' 'flood') or how county filters results. Agents have no guidance on parameter usage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description mentions 'Kenya climate data sources: weather, drought, flood risk,' which indicates the resource domain and topics. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'list,' 'query,' 'provide') to define the action the tool performs, making the purpose only moderately 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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., climate_adaptation_guide). The term 'DEMO' may imply it's a demonstration or not production-ready, but this is not clarified. No when/when-not information is provided.

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

• conservation_areasC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only adds 'DEMO', hinting at limited or sample data, but does not disclose read/write behavior, return format, or other operational traits.

  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?

  The description is very short and to the point, but it is under-specified. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.

  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 presence of an output schema and two optional parameters, the description does not sufficiently explain what the tool does, how parameters affect results, or the significance of 'DEMO'. It is incomplete 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 the two parameters (county, area_type). No additional meaning is provided beyond the bare schema names.

  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 deals with Kenya conservation areas, national parks, and protected land zones. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', the context implies data retrieval. It is distinct from sibling tools which are guides and queries.

  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. Sibling tools are sufficiently different, but the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• nema_permit_guideC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the tool covers permit requirements and process, but does not mention read-only nature, return format, limitations (e.g., demo data), or any side effects. The DEMO tag hints at limited functionality but 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is extremely short (two fragments), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose, but the 'DEMO' suffix feels tacked on. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall structure lacks completeness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameters, output, constraints, or how the demo aspect affects usage. Agent would lack vital context to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does not hint at what 'activity_type' or 'county' accept (e.g., allowed activities, county names). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type definitions.

  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 provides NEMA environmental permit requirements and process in Kenya, aligning with the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like environmental_rights_query, and the 'DEMO' tag may cause confusion about its actual utility.

  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 (e.g., climate_adaptation_guide, environmental_rights_query). The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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