Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vaillant_get_diagnosticsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Read-only', which indicates safety but omits details like whether it's a point-in-time snapshot, any performance implications, or authentication requirements.

  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 sentence of 18 words, front-loading the main purpose and then elaborating succinctly. Every word is necessary with no redundancy.

  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 complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description partially compensates by naming the two return categories and their sub-items. However, it lacks detail on the 'system_id' parameter and return format, leaving gaps.

  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 description provides no information about the only parameter 'system_id'. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain its purpose or usage, leaving the agent uninformed about how to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 that the tool retrieves a 'Diagnostic snapshot' and splits it into two categories: engineering_config and volatile_state, listing specific attributes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (vaillant_get_devices, vaillant_get_energy_report, vaillant_get_status) which target different data.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for diagnostics, no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided. Sibling tools differ in data type, but no comparison is given.

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

• vaillant_get_energy_reportB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns consumption, generation, and a derived cop_estimate with a quality flag, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations. Transparency is moderate.

  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 effectively conveys purpose and output details without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with key actions and returns.

  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?

  With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks explanation of parameter roles, data units, error handling, or usage constraints. The output is partially described but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  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 only 40% (end_date, start_date described). The description hints at 'time range' and 'per device' but does not explain parameters like system_id, device_uuid, or how operation_mode is used (likely in output). It adds little beyond schema for parameters.

  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 it retrieves energy consumption and generation per device per operation_mode for a time range in local timezone, including a derived COP estimate. This verb-resource combination and specificity distinguish it from siblings like vaillant_get_devices or vaillant_get_diagnostics.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or prerequisites. The description implies a time-range query but fails to mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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

• vaillant_get_devicesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided; description compensates by declaring the tool is static and read-only, which are key behavioral traits. However, lacks details on auth requirements or potential errors.

  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?

  Single sentence with clear list of included data. Front-loaded with core purpose. No unnecessary words.

  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, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks completeness on parameter semantics and return format. Adequate for a simple read-only tool but has gaps.

  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 has one parameter (system_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what system_id is, its format, or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.

  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?

  Description clearly states it provides static hardware inventory including specific components, and notes it's read-only. Distinct from siblings (diagnostics, energy report, status).

  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?

  Implicitly useful for retrieving hardware details, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings.

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

• vaillant_get_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' indicating no side effects, and lists the specific data fields returned. This provides clear behavioral context for a read operation.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose ('Current snapshot') and lists the data types. Every word adds value; no redundancy or waste.

  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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values (list of data points). It does not specify the exact format (e.g., JSON object), but for a status snapshot this is acceptable.

  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% (the parameter 'system_id' is documented in the input schema). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the parameter or its default behavior. 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 it provides a 'current snapshot' of the Vaillant heat pump system, listing specific data points (outdoor temperature, water pressure, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vaillant_get_devices or vaillant_get_diagnostics, which have different purposes.

  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 for a system status snapshot and labels it 'Read-only,' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling tools are mentioned in context but not differentiated in usage.

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