Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tr_search_legislationA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the title/full-text search distinction, which is useful but duplicates the parameter baslikta_ara. It omits other behavioral details like pagination, result limits, or search semantics (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy matching), but with annotations present, the added context is sufficient for a 3.

  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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an exemplary concise description.

  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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description need not explain return values or parameter semantics. It covers the essential purpose, and the annotations cover side effects. However, it could benefit from a brief note on result behavior (e.g., returns matching legislation list) and perhaps a pointer to sibling tools for related operations, so it isn't a 5.

  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 4 parameters having detailed descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies, 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.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Turkish legislation by title and/or full text.' This is a specific verb (search) with a specific resource (Turkish legislation) and search scope. It inherently distinguishes from siblings like tr_get_legislation_content and tr_get_legislation_toc, which focus on retrieval rather than search.

  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 alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when not to use it or directing users to sibling tools for other use cases. The only cross-reference is in the schema for mevzuat_turu, which points to a type-listing tool but doesn't provide usage context.

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

• tr_get_legislation_contentA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond clarifying that it fetches the full text, and no contradictions exist. It does not disclose edge cases or rate limits, but the output schema covers return format.

  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, direct sentence that clearly states the action and resource. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description, while brief, is sufficient given the structured information. It could explicitly mention retrieving the ID from search, but that is already covered in the schema parameter description, making the context effectively 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?

  The sole parameter mevzuat_id is fully described in the schema with an explanation that it comes from tr_search_legislation. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, and with 100% schema coverage, a 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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full text of a Turkish legislative document' with the lookup by mevzuat_id. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tr_get_legislation_toc (which would fetch a table of contents) and tr_search_legislation (which searches).

  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, but the phrase 'full text' implies it is for retrieving complete content as opposed to the TOC tool. Additionally, the parameter schema mentions the ID comes from a tr_search_legislation result, which is a usage hint, but that is in the schema rather than the description.

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

• tr_get_legislation_tocA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond clarifying the Turkish term for article tree, providing marginal value in this dimension.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The inclusion of the Turkish translation ('madde agaci') is useful for disambiguation and does not add unnecessary length.

  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, read-only, with output schema), the description adequately states what it returns (article tree) and the parameter description covers input provenance. There are no significant gaps for invocation, though it could have mentioned the tree's depth or pagination, but the output schema presumably covers that.

  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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter, describing mevzuat_id as 'Document id, from a tr_search_legislation result,' which adds the provenance requirement. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the 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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('article tree (madde agaci / table of contents) of a document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tr_get_legislation_content (content) and tr_search_legislation (search). It is unambiguous and well-scoped.

  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 retrieving a document's table of contents, and the parameter description adds a workflow constraint by specifying the ID comes from tr_search_legislation, which gives clear context for how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• tr_list_legislation_typesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds useful context that the document counts are 'live' (i.e., dynamic) and describes the return structure with examples, which is not in the 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the return type and examples. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place with no fluff.

  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, zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and even gives concrete examples. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so no additional context is needed.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

  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 'enumerate' and resource 'Turkish legislation types', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search, fetch content, or get table of contents. The examples of types (KANUN, KHK, etc.) further clarify exactly what the tool returns.

  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 purpose of listing types implies it serves as a reference for valid type values before searching. This is implied rather than stated, so it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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