Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_997_ackA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Given no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: sender/receiver swapping, one AK2/AK5 pair per transaction, and ack status based on envelope validation (clean → A, errors → R). This is beyond a basic description, but could also mention output format or side effects.

  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 with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clarifying detail. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Covers the essential aspects: purpose, swapping, transaction structure, and status logic. Lacks explicit mention of output format (likely the 997 string), but context is sufficient for a tool with no output schema.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add value beyond the schema. The 'content' parameter is implied to be the incoming interchange, and 'ack_control_number' default is mentioned in schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

  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 it builds an X12 997 Functional Acknowledgment from an interchange, specifying sender/receiver swapping and AK2/AK5 pairs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_edi, though the distinct purpose is evident.

  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, such as when validation is needed or when parsing alone suffices. The description implies usage after receiving an interchange but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• parse_ediA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It explains the parsing behavior and auto-detection but omits critical details like side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with invalid input, which are important for an AI agent.

  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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and output structure, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly grasp the purpose.

  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 parsing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input format, auto-detection, and output structure adequately. It lacks details on edge cases or error behaviors but is sufficient for common usage.

  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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'content' with a description. The tool's description largely echoes this schema description, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'parse', the resource 'EDI document', and the outcome 'structured JSON' with details on components (envelope, groups, transactions). It also notes auto-detection between X12 and EDIFACT, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like validate_edi.

  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 includes 'Use this when you need to read individual fields', which implies a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving room for interpretation.

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

• validate_ediA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning errors and warnings, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, auth needs, side effects). Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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: first states the specific validation checks, second describes output. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

  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 single-parameter validation tool, the description explains what is checked and what is returned. No output schema but description covers return type. Could mention that it does not parse into structured data, but still fairly complete.

  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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter comment. The tool description adds purpose but no additional parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 validates structural integrity of X12 or EDIFACT documents, listing specific checks (control number agreement, segment/transaction counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'parse_edi' (parsing) and 'summarize_edi' (summarization).

  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 use for validation before parsing/summarizing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Lacks clear usage context.

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

• summarize_ediA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses how different transaction types are handled (detailed vs. segment inventory). However, it omits the output format (e.g., plain text vs. structured), error handling, or any side effects. The absence of output schema further limits 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?

  The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detailed behavior for specific types. It is front-loaded 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?

  For a tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions 'human-readable business summary' and 'segment inventory' but does not specify format, clarity, or handling of invalid inputs. This lack of detail limits completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's outputs.

  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% coverage for the single parameter 'content', describing it as raw EDI document text. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 produces a human-readable business summary of an EDI document, listing specific supported types (X12 850/810/856/997, EDIFACT ORDERS/INVOIC) and a fallback segment inventory for others. This distinguishes it from siblings like parse_edi and validate_edi.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for obtaining a plain-language summary, and the fallback behavior hints at limitations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to avoid using it. The sibling names provide some context, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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