Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• wa_audit_tailA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  States 'Read-only' and explains that message bodies are stored as preview+hash only. With no annotations, description effectively discloses safety and data constraints.

  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?

  Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or extraneous text.

  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?

  Covers purpose, read-only nature, and data storage. However, lacks explanation for the 'limit' parameter, which is significant given its optionality and default. Output schema exists but parameter semantics are left unaddressed.

  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 only parameter 'limit' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not mention or clarify the parameter, leaving the agent to assume its function.

  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?

  Clear verb 'Return' and specific resource 'send-attempt audit records' with filtering by allowed/blocked/failed. Distinguishes from sibling tools (sending or listing recipients).

  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?

  Implies usage for audit records but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use this tool in favor of siblings.

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

• wa_previewA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is a dry-run, non-destructive, and returns a verdict and confirm_token. It lacks details on side effects or idempotency, but overall provides sufficient transparency for its safe nature.

  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 concise with only two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the key purpose and usage advice. 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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and usage context. It could mention authentication or idempotency, but it is largely complete for its scope.

  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 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. It implicitly references 'recipient' but does not clarify the roles of 'message' and 'file_path', nor their constraints like mutual exclusivity or optionality. This is a significant gap.

  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 it is a dry-run for sending, performing security checks and reporting what would happen without actual sending. It specifically contrasts with the send tool, distinguishing its purpose well from siblings like wa_send_message.

  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 "Use this before any send you are unsure about," which provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives besides the send tool.

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

• wa_send_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: auto-sanitization of filename, validation of type/size, secret scanning of caption, and potential need for confirm_token. These go beyond basic 'send file' but omit details like rate limits or failure modes.

  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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and adds key behavioral details efficiently, earning its place.

  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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description covers validation, sanitization, and token requirements. However, it lacks specifics on file size limits, supported types, or success/error outputs, leaving some context incomplete.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains file_path (auto-sanitized), caption (scanned), and confirm_token (from wa_preview), but does not clearly describe recipient format or confirm_token retrieval. Gaps remain for parameters like recipient and file_path expectations.

  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 'Send a file to an allowlisted recipient', specifying the verb (send) and resource (file). The sibling tools (wa_send_message for text, wa_preview for preview, wa_list_recipients for listing, wa_audit_tail for audit) differentiate this tool's purpose of sending files, making it distinct.

  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 implicitly guides usage by mentioning that a confirm_token may be required and referencing wa_preview, hinting at a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over wa_send_message or provide exclusions.

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

• wa_send_messageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses the key behavioral aspects: passing through allowlist, secret scan, rate limit, and confirmation gates. It explains the conditional re-call pattern but omits details on error handling or specific rate limits.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds critical workflow detail. Every word contributes to understanding.

  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?

  The description adequately covers the main behavior but lacks details on the output schema's role (e.g., that it returns 'needs_confirm' and 'confirm_token'). It assumes knowledge of the security gate components without elaboration. For a tool with a confirmation workflow, more context would improve completeness.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'confirm_token' parameter's role in the confirmation workflow. However, it does not specify the expected format for 'recipient' or any length constraints for 'message', leaving some ambiguity.

  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 specific verb 'Send', the resource 'WhatsApp text message', and the constraint 'allowlisted recipient'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like wa_send_file (sends files) and wa_preview (previews).

  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 explicitly explains the security gate and the two-step confirmation workflow involving 'needs_confirm' and 'confirm_token'. It lacks explicit alternatives for when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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

• wa_list_recipientsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is read-only and numbers are masked, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is adequate.

  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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by safety info and cross-tool guidance.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers everything needed: what it does, safety, and how to use the results with other tools. It is complete.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no param info but does explain the output's role, which indirectly aids parameter understanding for sibling tools. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

  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's purpose: 'List the allowlisted WhatsApp recipients this engine is permitted to message.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the tool is distinct from siblings like wa_send_message.

  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 advises using the returned `name` as the `recipient` argument to other tools, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the sibling tools imply the workflow.

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