Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• open_dashboardA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a local dashboard and explains the content users can review, but it does not mention side effects, whether it blocks, or any limitations. The description is clear but lacks deeper behavioral context such as browser launch behavior or potential delays.

  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 and the value to the user. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what the user gains. However, it lacks any mention of when to use it relative to siblings, which slightly reduces 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. This aligns with the baseline for 0-parameter tools.

  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 action ('Open the local dashboard in the user's browser') and the specific resource (dashboard of form history), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_user and get_updates.

  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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit cues.

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

• ask_userA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 discloses that the call blocks until the user submits, returns structured answers, opens in a browser, and supports various question types with an optional custom write-in. This provides comprehensive behavioral 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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it is well-structured with the usage tip at the end.

  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 schema fully documents parameters and the description covers when to use the tool, its blocking behavior, and return type, it is complete for this interactive form tool. No output schema is needed to understand what is returned.

  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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds some context about form behavior and 'structured answers' but does not significantly deepen parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 shows an interactive web form to collect answers, contrasting with asking in chat. It specifies the resource (form) and action (ask/collect), and differentiates from siblings (open_dashboard, get_updates) which are unrelated.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this whenever you have a task list, a review checklist, or several questions for the user to decide on at once.' It also notes when not to use it ('instead of asking one question at a time in chat'), giving a clear alternative.

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

• get_updatesA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even without annotations, the description explains the behavior in detail: it returns changed sessions and the current revision to pass next time, and it clarifies the meaning of sinceRevision=0/omitted. This fully discloses the incremental semantics and the stateless pagination mechanism, leaving no hidden surprises.

  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 compact and every sentence contributes: it explains the method, the response, the initial call, and the use case. No filler or repetitive content.

  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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context: how to call, what to expect, and why to use it. It leaves no significant gaps for the agent to guess about.

  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 schema already describes the 'sinceRevision' parameter completely (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the pattern of passing the last seen revision and the response format, which goes beyond the schema's basic definition. This is a solid enhancement without being redundant.

  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 function: incrementally read history, returning only sessions changed after a given revision. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (ask_user, open_dashboard) by its focus on delta reads.

  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?

  The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of re-reading the whole history so you only pull deltas — e.g. to pick up answers the user edited after the fact.' This clearly indicates the intended use case and the advantage over full-history reads.

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