Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_closest_stopC
  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 'find' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., distance, stop details), potential errors (e.g., invalid coordinates), or performance aspects like rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral traits needed for safe and effective invocation.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (e.g., stop names, distances). It doesn't explain what the output includes, how 'closest' is determined (e.g., walking distance, straight-line), or error handling. For a tool with one parameter but potentially rich behavior, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

  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 the 'coordinates' parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., format 'latitude, longitude'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate range limits or examples of valid inputs. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 verb 'find' and the resource 'closest public transport stop' with the condition 'to given coordinates', making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_stops', which might handle multiple stops or different criteria, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

  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 like 'find_stops', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors (e.g., transport modes, time of day). It only states the basic function without usage context, which limits its helpfulness for an agent selecting between tools.

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

• find_stopsB
  3.1/5.0
  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. The description states it's a search operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but it doesn't confirm this or provide details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, clear sentence: 'Search for public transport stops by name'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and method.

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. However, for a simple search tool, it provides enough to understand the basic function.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema as 'Full or partial name of the stop to search for'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is added in the description.

  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: 'Search for public transport stops by name' specifies the verb (search), resource (public transport stops), and mechanism (by name). It's not tautological and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_closest_stop' by focusing on name-based search rather than proximity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other search methods beyond the sibling.

  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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'find_closest_stop' or any other potential tools, nor does it specify contexts where name-based search is preferred over proximity-based search. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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