Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• addA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already carry the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the finite-number constraint, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as overflow, precision limits, or handling of invalid non-finite inputs.

  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 front-loads the operation and immediately clarifies the operands with the formula. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

  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 two-parameter arithmetic tool, the description is nearly complete: the operation, operand roles, and safety profile are all clear, and the output schema covers the return value. A small remaining gap is explicit guidance on non-finite or invalid inputs, though the word 'finite' partially addresses 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?

  With zero schema description coverage, the schema's titles 'A' and 'B' carry no meaning on their own. The description gives both parameters semantic context through 'a + b' and the finite-number interpretation, but it provides no per-parameter constraints beyond that.

  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 states a specific operation (add) and a specific resource (two finite numbers), and reinforces it with the formula 'a + b'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools subtract, multiply, and divide.

  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 makes the applicable context clear: use this tool when two finite numbers need to be summed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation name and formula make the choice obvious against the listed siblings.

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

• multiplyA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'finite numbers' constraint, which is useful domain context, but it does not add much beyond that.

  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. It states the verb, operand constraints, and formula immediately.

  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 an extremely simple pure arithmetic tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what inputs are valid and what operation will be performed.

  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%, so the description must carry meaning for the parameters. The phrase 'a * b' and 'two finite numbers' clarifies that both parameters are numeric operands and their relationship, but it does not describe each parameter individually. This is adequate for such a simple operation.

  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 ('multiply'), identifies the resource ('two finite numbers'), and states the exact operation ('a * b'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools add, subtract, and divide.

  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 makes the use case explicit: call this tool when you need to multiply exactly two finite numbers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set is small and the operation is unambiguous.

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

• subtractA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying operand order (non-commutative behavior) and the constraint that both operands must be finite numbers.

  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 that front-loads the formula and then adds the key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 two-operand arithmetic tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantic and constraint information. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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?

  Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions, the description carries the burden of explaining 'a' and 'b'. It does so via the formula, making clear that 'a' is the minuend and 'b' is the subtrahend, and adds the finite-number requirement. This is strong compensation for 0% schema coverage.

  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 operation with a specific formula, 'Subtract b from a: a - b', which precisely defines the tool's behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add, multiply, and divide by naming the exact arithmetic operation and operand order.

  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 the tool is for subtraction but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools add, multiply, or divide. For a simple arithmetic operation this is minimally sufficient, yet there is no explicit usage context or exclusion.

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

• divideA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable precondition context: operands must be finite and the divisor must be non-zero. This goes beyond the annotations and alerts the agent to important input constraints, though it does not describe the exact error handling for violated preconditions.

  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 that front-loads the core operation (a / b) and immediately states the critical constraints. There is no redundant wording or filler.

  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 two-number arithmetic tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and side effects, this description is complete. It includes the operation, operand roles, and the non-zero/finiteness preconditions. Nothing essential is missing.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining the relationship exactly: a is the dividend and b is the divisor via a / b. It also attaches the necessary constraints to both operands, making parameter usage unambiguous despite the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: divide a by b with the explicit formula a / b. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools add, subtract, and multiply, and the finite/non-zero constraints further pin down its intended operation.

  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 use when a quotient of two finite numbers is needed, and the sibling list makes the alternative arithmetic tools obvious. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of multiply/subtract/add', but the task context and formula provide sufficient guidance. The constraint that b must not be zero is a useful usage condition.

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