Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_availability_and_list_bookingsC
  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 authentication via cookie/env var and returns an availability summary, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, pagination for large result sets, or what happens when resource_ids is null. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is reasonably concise with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as separate documentation. Some sentences like 'If not provided, looks for DISH_COOKIE env var.' are useful but could be more elegantly integrated.

  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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic context but has significant gaps. It mentions authentication and return type, but doesn't explain the availability summary format, error handling, or query constraints. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should provide more operational context for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some parameter context: datetime_range is for the query, resource_ids are optional room IDs, cookie is for authentication with fallback to env var, and ctx is a context object. However, it doesn't explain the DatetimeRange structure (start/end datetime), format expectations, or what happens when resource_ids is null. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Check room availability for the DiSH API and list bookings for a room and date range.' This specifies both the action (check availability and list bookings) and the resource (room). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like book_room or cancel_booking, which are clearly different operations.

  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. While it mentions checking availability and listing bookings, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate versus using book_room or cancel_booking. The only usage context is implicit through the tool's name and purpose.

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

• book_roomB
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication via cookie and user info with fallbacks to env vars, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is structured but could be more concise by integrating details into the main text. Every sentence adds value, though minor streamlining is possible.

  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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates with parameter semantics. However, as a mutation tool with an output schema (not detailed here), it lacks behavioral context like success criteria or error cases. It's adequate but has clear gaps in usage and transparency.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: 'datetime_range' specifies its purpose, 'meeting_room_name' clarifies it's for naming, 'user_info' and 'cookie' explain fallback mechanisms, and 'summary' notes the default. This goes beyond the bare schema, though some details like format specifics are missing.

  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 with a specific verb ('Book') and resource ('a room'), and it specifies the API ('Dish Manchester API'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cancel_booking' and 'check_availability_and_list_bookings' by focusing on creation rather than cancellation or checking.

  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. It does not mention alternatives like 'check_availability_and_list_bookings' for verifying room availability before booking, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• cancel_bookingA
  4.3/5.0
  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 discloses that authentication is needed via a cookie or environment variable and mentions a cancellation policy option, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe the tool's behavior in terms of side effects (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible, confirmation messages, or error handling), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is structured clearly, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the booking ID sourcing into a single sentence without repetition.

  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 complexity (a mutation with authentication and policy considerations), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job covering usage and parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/error responses), which the output schema might address but isn't described here.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: booking_id (with an example ID and how to obtain it), cookie (authentication details and fallback), and skip_cancellation_policy (default behavior). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

  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 action ('cancel') and resource ('room booking') using the DiSH API. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (book_room and check_availability_and_list_bookings) by focusing on cancellation rather than creation or checking availability.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool: when you need to cancel a booking and have the booking ID. It also specifies how to obtain the booking ID (using the check_availability tool), offering a clear alternative for that prerequisite step.

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