Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• governor_resetA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive action (reset of history and log) but does not explicitly state consequences, reversibility, or required permissions. The phrase 'empezar una demo limpia' hints at data loss, but lacks clear warnings.

  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: two sentences totaling under 20 words, with no redundant phrases. Every part is essential and front-loaded, fulfilling the requirement of being appropriately sized.

  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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the main action and use case. However, it could be improved by explicitly stating that the reset is irreversible or mentioning the response format.

  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% (the only parameter 'agentId' has a description in the schema). The tool description adds minimal value beyond that: it mentions that omitting the parameter resets everything, but does not elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 ('reinicia') and the resources ('historial' and 'registro de decisiones'), specifying a reset/restart action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools ('governor_evaluate' and 'governor_log') by indicating a different function (reset vs. evaluate/log).

  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 provides a usage scenario ('útil para empezar una demo limpia') which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives. Without exclusions or comparisons to siblings, the guidance is implied but incomplete.

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

• governor_logA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Devuelve el registro') but doesn't explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention auth requirements, or rate limits. For a read-only tool, disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

  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?

  A single sentence conveys the purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though it is slightly long. Efficient for a simple tool.

  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 is simple (one optional param, no output schema) and siblings suggest a log/read context, the description sufficiently explains the return content. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or limits, but these are unlikely critical.

  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% (one parameter with description). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.

  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 returns an auditable record of Governor decisions with specific metrics (total, approved, escalated, braked, USD protected). It distinguishes from siblings (evaluate, reset) by focusing on logging and metrics.

  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 retrieving logs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (evaluate, reset) or any prerequisites. Sibling differentiation is inferential.

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

• governor_evaluateA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool returns a verdict and that the agent must obey it. It implies a read-only check ('seguridad') but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., logging) or response structure. However, the core behavior is transparent.

  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, using two short sentences. It front-loads the critical purpose ('Cinturón de seguridad') and immediately gives actionable instructions. 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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters (4 required), one enum, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the verdict types and urgency. It lacks return structure specification, which would be helpful given no output schema, but overall it is sufficient.

  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%, so description adds no parameter-specific value. Baseline 3 is appropriate. The description focuses on usage context rather than parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema already documents all 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: evaluating payments and returning a verdict. It uses a specific metaphor ('Cinturón de seguridad') and distinguishes from siblings like governor_log and governor_reset by its role as a pre-execution check.

  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 instructs to call this tool 'ANTES de ejecutar CUALQUIER operación con dinero' and emphasizes respecting the verdict. It gives clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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