Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_nowcast_observationB
  3.2/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states that current observed weather is retrieved, without revealing any details about data source, update timing, units, response format, or potential errors. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler language, making it highly efficient.

  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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the core purpose is adequately stated. However, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics, which would make it more complete. The presence of sibling tools makes the missing usage guidance more notable, but the description is not wholly incomplete.

  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 describes 'lon' and 'lat' as numbers with 0% description coverage. The description says '특정 좌표' (specific coordinates), which implies the two parameters are latitude and longitude, but does not add units, format, or range constraints. This minimal addition only partially compensates for the lack of schema-level 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 identifies the action ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and the resource ('현재 관측 날씨' / current observed weather) at specific coordinates. It distinguishes itself from sibling forecast tools by explicitly stating '관측' (observation).

  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 does not mention the sibling tools or explain that this is for observational data rather than forecasts. The only inference comes from the tool name, which is not explicit within the description.

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

• get_short_term_forecastB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates a read-only 'retrieval' action, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data update frequency, geographic coverage, units, or any limitations. For a simple read operation, this is minimal and lacks useful context.

  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 that directly states the action, resource, and scope with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently concise and well-structured.

  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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and time range. However, it lacks any mention of forecast intervals, units, or data source, and the absence of annotations leaves some behavioral gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 mentions 'specific coordinates' which generically relates to both lon and lat, but does not clarify coordinate format, order, allowable ranges, or other constraints. The parameter names themselves are self-explanatory, but the description adds little 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 clearly states a specific action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) on a specific resource ('단기(3~5일) 예보' - short-term 3-5 day forecast) with a clear scope ('특정 좌표' - specific coordinates). The time range '3~5일' distinguishes it from nowcast siblings, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 short-term (3-5 day) forecasts at given coordinates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the nowcast siblings or provide exclusions. The context is clear but guidance is only implicit, not direct.

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

• get_nowcast_forecastA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'queries' which indicates a read operation, and specifies the 6-hour forecast horizon, providing some context. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or coordinate system details, which leaves gaps in behavioral transparency.

  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 is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no unnecessary 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 low complexity of the tool (two number parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and context (6-hour forecast at a coordinate). It could be more complete by noting the coordinate format or that it is read-only, but these are partially implied by 'queries' and the output schema.

  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 input schema has two parameters (lat, lon) with no descriptions, and the description adds only that it targets a 'specific coordinate' without explaining the format, units, or ranges. This minimal addition fails to compensate for the 0% schema description 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 tool 'queries' the 'very short-term (6-hour) forecast' for 'a specific coordinate', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 6-hour horizon, which sets it apart from observations or longer-term forecasts.

  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 use for very short-term forecasts but does not explicitly mention when to use it over the sibling tools like get_nowcast_observation or get_short_term_forecast. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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