Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_road_closuresC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of closures included ('full closures, lane closures, and significant restrictions'), but does not cover critical aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are essential for a read operation with filtering.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to parse.

  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 complexity of a read operation with filtering and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return format, pagination, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools, which are necessary for effective tool selection and invocation.

  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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning filtering by 'region/highway' and including 'severity' implicitly, but it does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already documents, such as examples or constraints.

  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: 'List all current road closures and major restrictions across BC or filtered by region/highway.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('road closures and major restrictions'), and scope ('across BC'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_highway_conditions' or 'get_regional_conditions', which likely overlap in functionality.

  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. It mentions filtering by region or highway, but does not specify when to choose this over sibling tools such as 'get_highway_conditions' or 'get_regional_conditions', leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

• get_weather_alertsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool retrieves (e.g., 'active weather alerts, incidents, and road condition warnings') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't inform the agent about operational constraints or expected behavior beyond the basic output.

  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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding examples in the second. It avoids unnecessary details and wastes no words, making it efficient for an agent to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage hints, but it's already well-sized for its 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?

  Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks output details, behavioral context, and sibling differentiation. Without an output schema, the agent must infer return values, and the description doesn't address this gap. It's adequate for a basic read operation but has clear omissions for effective tool selection and invocation.

  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 parameter descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults (e.g., 'default: all weather-related' for alertType is only in the schema), or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic insights.

  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 active weather alerts, incidents, and road condition warnings across BC.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('weather alerts, incidents, and road condition warnings'), and includes examples like 'winter conditions, avalanche warnings, fog advisories.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_highway_conditions' or 'get_road_closures,' which likely overlap in scope, preventing a score of 5.

  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 its siblings (e.g., 'get_highway_conditions,' 'get_regional_conditions,' 'get_road_closures'). It mentions the scope ('across BC') and types of alerts, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, alternatives, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context without clear direction.

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

• get_regional_conditionsB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second adds contextual value without redundancy. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a hint of usage, but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, or differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the minimum viable threshold.

  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 all parameters (region, eventType, limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

  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 road conditions and events for a specific BC region.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('road conditions and events'), and mentions the geographic scope ('BC region'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_highway_conditions or get_road_closures, which likely have overlapping functionality.

  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 some usage context: 'Useful for planning trips within a geographic area.' This implies when to use it, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_highway_conditions or get_road_closures. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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

• get_highway_conditionsA
  3.5/5.0
  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 behavioral traits: it returns 'current conditions, incidents, and closures' and 'active events including construction, accidents, weather conditions, and road closures,' indicating real-time data scope. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling, which are important 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detail on return values. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

  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 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and return types but lacks output format details, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for a tool that fetches dynamic data.

  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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by highway and event types, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 conditions, incidents, and closures for a specific BC highway' with specific resources (highway conditions) and verb (get). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'specific BC highway' (vs. regional, road closures only, or weather alerts only), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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 context by specifying 'specific BC highway' and listing event types, suggesting it's for detailed highway-level info. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. siblings like get_regional_conditions or get_road_closures, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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