Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• plan_journeyA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that this is a read-only query to a self-hosted OTP instance, returns ranked itineraries with detailed per-leg information, and fails gracefully for out-of-coverage locations. It does not mention any side effects or rate limits, but given the read-only nature, the transparency is sufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, the current paragraph is clear and efficient with no wasted words.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the return format (ranked itineraries, per-leg details, times, transfer count) and a failure scenario. It does not address error handling for invalid station names, but for a simple tool with 3 parameters, it is largely 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description reiterates that 'from' and 'to' can be station names or coordinates, and mentions the default for 'numItineraries', which is already in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool plans a public-transit journey using a specific self-hosted OTP instance for the Kanto area. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rail/subway journey planning, while 'plan_route_map' likely handles map-based routes and 'suggest_stations' provides station suggestions.

  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 journey planning within Kanto but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_route_map' or 'suggest_stations'. It provides a limitation (covers only Kanto) but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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

• suggest_stationsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns matching stations with coordinates and references a specific instance, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

  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 autocomplete tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and its intended use case. Minor missing details about error handling or behavior for exact matches.

  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 is 100%, and the description adds context for the 'q' parameter by stating it expects a station name prefix or substring. However, it does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema provides.

  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 autocompletes station names against a specific OTP instance, returns matching stations with coordinates, and is meant to resolve names before using plan_journey. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its role as a preliminary step.

  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?

  Explicitly advises using this tool before plan_journey, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative approaches for disambiguation.

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

• plan_route_mapA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns both visual timeline and text, shows stations, times, line colors, transfer points, accepts station names or coordinates. It could mention potential limitations like API availability or language support.

  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 well-structured and concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds value.

  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 no output schema, it adequately explains return format (visual timeline and text) and covers all parameters. Could briefly mention error handling or supported regions, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining 'from' and 'to' can be station names or 'lat,lon' coordinates, and routeIndex selects itinerary (0=best). This goes beyond the schema's short 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 states 'Plan a rail/subway journey and render it as a Yahoo!乗換案内-style vertical timeline' with specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes from sibling 'plan_journey' by emphasizing the visual output.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly advises 'Prefer this over plan_journey when a visual route is helpful', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains default best itinerary and routeIndex for alternatives.

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