Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_sipp_scenarioB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Create' but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, validates XML, what happens on error, or if it is idempotent. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

  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 a single, efficient sentence capturing the core function. It could benefit from a second sentence clarifying behavior or return value, but it is appropriately brief given the tool name.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns or the side effect. It does not mention results, file location, or confirmation. For a creation tool with three parameters, the description is 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate further.

  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 action ('Create') and the resource ('custom SIPp XML scenario file') with context ('for testing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which check version, get statistics, and run scenarios, making it obvious this tool is for creation.

  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 like editing an existing scenario or using other tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose custom vs. basic_call, or any exclusions.

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

• get_sipp_statisticsB
  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 the full burden. It only states 'Parse and display statistics,' which is minimal and does not disclose error handling, output format, or potential side effects.

  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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively conveying the tool's function.

  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 output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details about return values, prerequisites (e.g., SIPp installed), or behavior when the CSV file is missing or malformed, making it 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 100% with one parameter already described as 'Path to the SIPp statistics CSV file.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb 'Parse and display' and the resource 'statistics from SIPp CSV output files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_sipp_version and run_sipp_scenario.

  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 when handling SIPp CSV files, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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

• run_sipp_scenarioA
  3.5/5.0
  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 mentions 'execute' without disclosing behavioral traits like blocking/asynchronous behavior, resource usage, side effects on system, or failure modes. This is insufficient.

  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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and is missing a title. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more organized.

  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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover return values or outcomes of execution. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, statistics). It is incomplete for a complex tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning UAC/UAS (corresponding to 'mode'), but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond schema. It adds marginal value.

  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 executes a SIPp scenario for SIP testing, specifies roles (UAC/UAS), and mentions custom scenarios. It distinguishes well from siblings: check_sipp_version, create_sipp_scenario, get_sipp_statistics.

  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 gives clear context for usage (UAC/UAS, custom scenarios), but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternative guidance. However, the sibling tool names make the distinctions evident.

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

• check_sipp_versionA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects (none expected), error behavior if SIPp missing, or output format. With no annotations, description carries full burden and falls short.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Earns its place with zero waste.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, description is mostly complete for a simple check tool. Could mention error behavior or that version is returned, but overall sufficient.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The schema has 100% coverage with 0 parameters, and description adds no parameter info (none needed).

  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?

  Description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('SIPp installed and version'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_sipp_scenario or run_sipp_scenario.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by sibling tool names, but the description does not state that this should be used before other SIPp operations or what to do if not installed.

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