Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sk_get_textB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific 'consolidated version' context, which is useful, but otherwise provides no additional behavioral details such as return format or pagination.

  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?

  A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

  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 simple read-only fetch tool with a robust schema and output schema present, the description is adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose, though it could have explicitly connected to sibling tools for fuller selection context.

  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%, with all three parameters (year, number, version_id) documented. The description's reference to 'full text' and 'consolidated version' indirectly supports the version_id parameter, but the schema already carries the explanatory burden, so the description adds little beyond the baseline.

  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 states the tool fetches the full text of a Slovak act, specifically a consolidated version. This is a clear verb+resource+scope pairing that distinguishes it from likely sibling operations, though it does not 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 Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sk_get_versions or sk_get_act. The implied use case is present but there are no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

• sk_get_versionsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'List' is consistent. The qualifier 'consolidated versions' adds some scope context, but the description does not reveal behavioral details like ordering, pagination, or empty-result handling. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 redundant wording. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

  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 simple read-only list tool, the description combined with full parameter schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema provides sufficient information for correct invocation. The only notable gap is usage guidance relative to siblings, which is already captured under usage guidelines.

  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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (year and number) with examples, so the description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the 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 the tool lists consolidated versions of a Slovak act, using a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('consolidated versions'). This differentiates it from sibling tools sk_get_act and sk_get_text, which focus on act details or text.

  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 sk_get_act or sk_get_text. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names alone.

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

• sk_get_actA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description's 'Fetch' aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the purpose. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description earns the baseline score for not contradicting them.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it easy to parse and appropriately sized.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple lookup tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies what the tool does and how to target an act; return details are covered by the 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?

  Schema coverage for parameters is 100%, with each parameter having example descriptions. The description merely restates 'by year and number' without adding semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it gets the baseline of 3.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'Slovak act metadata' and specifies the lookup keys 'by year and number'. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like sk_get_text (text) and sk_get_versions (versions), even though alternatives are not named.

  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 need metadata for a Slovak act and know the year and number. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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