Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_schemeB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description only states the action 'delete' but does not disclose destructive effects, cascading impacts, permissions, or error behavior.

  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?

  Very concise, two sentences with no extraneous text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., add result info).

  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 simple delete operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Lacks behavioral context like idempotency or error handling.

  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?

  The description merely restates the schema: 'The numeric ID of the scheme to delete.' With 0% schema description coverage, this adds no value beyond the input schema.

  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 'Delete a scheme by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, read, search, update.

  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. Implies deletion by ID but does not mention prerequisites or conditions (e.g., existence check).

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

• search_schemesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists many parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits like filtering logic (AND/OR), case sensitivity, default sorting, or performance considerations. It adequately describes input but lacks deeper behavioral context.

  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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a structured list of parameters. It is efficient but slightly long due to 20 entries; overall well-organized.

  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 20 parameters and no annotations, the description covers input but does not mention output schema, return format, or pagination behavior beyond limit/offset. An output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving some gaps in completeness.

  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 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description compensates by listing all 20 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'age: Age of the user'). However, these explanations are minimal and do not include constraints or examples.

  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 'Search schemes by user profile/filters' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions eligibility matching, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, read, update, and health.

  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 versus alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (CRUD + health) implies this is the search/filter tool. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• update_schemeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only provided fields are updated (partial update behavior), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what happens if the ID does not exist, error handling, authorization needs, or whether the update is destructive. The partial update detail is useful but leaves gaps.

  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 very concise: two sentences and a short args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The reference to create_scheme for other params is efficient, though it assumes the agent will look up that tool. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified for a tool with many parameters.

  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 (32 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain validation, required parameters beyond id, or the response format (though output schema exists). The reference to create_scheme helps but does not fully cover the semantics of all fields or edge cases.

  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 compensate. It only explains the 'id' parameter and refers to create_scheme for others, without specifying the meaning of any field (e.g., 'code', 'name'). The schema titles provide some semantics, but the description adds minimal value. For 32 parameters, this is insufficient.

  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 'Update' and the resource 'government scheme record by ID'. It also adds the important constraint 'Pass only fields to change', distinguishing it from a full replacement. This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous, even without explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

  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 clearly implies usage for updating an existing scheme rather than creating or deleting it. The phrase 'Pass only fields to change' provides guidance on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creation use create_scheme) or list any prerequisites.

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

• healthA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and return format; it omits whether the call is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, 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?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted 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 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral details for a health check tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline for no parameters is 4.

  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 verifies server health and API connectivity, specifying the returned format. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools (all scheme CRUD operations).

  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 health checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• read_schemeA
  3.7/5.0
  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 describes a simple fetch operation with no side effects, but fails to disclose behaviors like error handling or response format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so the description is adequate but minimal.

  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, using two sentences for the overall purpose and one sentence for the parameter. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It could be improved by noting error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), but as it is, it is nearly complete for a basic fetch operation.

  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?

  The schema has one required integer parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'numeric ID' which is redundant with the schema type. It does not provide additional context such as valid ranges or how to obtain the ID.

  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 'Fetch a single scheme by numeric ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scheme, delete_scheme, update_scheme, and search_schemes.

  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 when you have a numeric ID for a scheme, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_schemes, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

• create_schemeA
  4.1/5.0
  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 unknown fields are ignored and returns the created row as JSON. However, it lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, or permissions required.

  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 front-loaded with key behavior in one sentence, then provides a structured list of parameters with brief descriptions. Though lengthy due to 31 parameters, it is well-organized.

  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 complexity (31 params, no enum constraints), the description covers basic usage and parameter meanings. However, it does not provide guidance on minimal required fields or uniqueness constraints, leaving some gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists all 31 parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., category lists allowed domains). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 'Create a new government scheme record', specifying the action (create) and resource (government scheme record). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_scheme, delete_scheme, and read_scheme.

  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 purpose implies use for creating new records, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, such as using update_scheme for modifications.

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