Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gva_countC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, error handling for invalid SQL, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

  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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs data operations. It doesn't explain what 'features' are, the data source, return format (e.g., integer count), or error cases, leaving significant gaps in understanding for effective use.

  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, fully documenting the 'where' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining valid SQL syntax or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does 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 action ('Count') and target ('features matching a WHERE clause'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of features or from what source (e.g., database table, GIS layer), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like gva_query which might also involve filtering.

  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 such as gva_query or gva_layer_info. It mentions a WHERE clause but doesn't explain scenarios where counting is preferred over querying or exporting, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• gva_export_geojsonC
  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. While 'Export' implies a read operation that outputs data, the description doesn't mention whether this tool is safe (non-destructive), has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format entails beyond 'GeoJSON format'. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 tool's complexity (exporting data with filtering and field selection), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

  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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema fully documents all three parameters (where, out_fields, result_record_count) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't compensate or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline of 3.

  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 action ('Export') and the resource ('features to GeoJSON format'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (gva_count, gva_layer_info, gva_query), which all appear to work with similar geospatial data but serve different purposes.

  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 its siblings or alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• gva_queryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'SQL-like WHERE clause and optional parameters' but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (especially given no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

  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 purpose ('Query features from the GVA GIS layer') and adds essential detail ('with SQL-like WHERE clause and optional parameters'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

  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 complexity of a query tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error cases, and the structure of returned data (e.g., geometry format, pagination behavior). This leaves the agent poorly equipped to handle real-world usage scenarios.

  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 input schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'SQL-like WHERE clause and optional parameters' but not elaborating on parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Query features') and resource ('from the GVA GIS layer'), specifying it uses a SQL-like WHERE clause with optional parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like gva_count (counting) and gva_export_geojson (exporting), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from gva_layer_info (which likely provides metadata).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gva_count or gva_export_geojson is provided. The description implies usage for querying features with filtering, but lacks context on prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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

• gva_layer_infoA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get metadata information'), which suggests non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose other traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks detailed behavioral disclosure.

  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 purpose ('Get metadata information') and lists specific metadata types without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains what metadata is retrieved but does not cover the return format or any error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, additional context on behavioral aspects would enhance completeness for this read-only tool.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

  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 'Get' and the resource 'metadata information about the GVA GIS layer', specifying the exact types of information returned (fields, geometry type, spatial reference, extent). It distinguishes from siblings like gva_count, gva_export_geojson, and gva_query by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than counting, exporting, or querying data.

  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 obtaining layer metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gva_query for data access or gva_export_geojson for exporting. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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