Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• select_profileA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the main behavioral effect (activation for the next shot) and the need to call get_profiles first, but does not mention side effects like persistence, reversibility, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

  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 short, focused sentences. The first states the action and effect; the second provides an actionable instruction. No filler or 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, siblings are all getters), the description covers purpose, effect, and prerequisite. Slight gap is the absence of error/edge-case handling, but for a simple activation it is adequately complete.

  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% for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by its ID,' which is already captured in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 states a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('brewing profile'), and clearly distinguishes the tool's action from the sibling getter tools by explaining the effect ('machine will use this profile for the next shot').

  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?

  Provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Get available profile IDs using get_profiles first.' This conveys when to use the tool and the necessary prior step, but does not mention scenarios where this tool should not be used or alternatives beyond the prerequisite.

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

• get_shotA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific output fields and the special behavior of omitting the ID to return the latest shot. It does not mention potential errors or read-only guarantees, but 'retrieve' implies a safe read operation.

  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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and enough detail to be immediately useful. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter and no output schema—the description covers the function, return data fields, and usage conditions effectively. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by listing expected return values, though it stops short of describing the exact data structure.

  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% for the single 'id' parameter, describing it as a Shot ID and noting to omit for the latest shot. The description repeats this 'omit' behavior in prose but adds no new semantics beyond the 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 states 'Retrieve detailed shot data with time-series curves for analysis,' which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the exact data fields returned, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_status or get_profiles.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for analysis') and gives a specific usage condition ('Omit ID to get the most recent shot'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is enough to infer proper use.

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

• get_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  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 does disclose the specific measured values (temperature, pressure, weight, tank level, active operations, profile). However, it does not clarify whether the data is live from the machine vs cached, or whether machine connectivity is required, which are important behavioral details.

  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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists all returned data in a structured, readable way. No filler words or 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?

  There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly with units and field semantics. It does not mention error cases or the overall response envelope, but for a simple status tool the coverage is strong.

  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 confirms this. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the output fields, which is the only possible semantic contribution. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('real-time Gaggiuino espresso machine status'), and enumerates the data fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shot (historical shot data) and get_profiles (profile list).

  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 phrase 'real-time' clearly implies this tool is for current machine state, contrasting with historical shot retrieval (get_shot). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• get_profilesA
  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 is the sole source of behavioral info. It states the return payload (profile IDs, names, selected) and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. This is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

  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, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Each sentence contributes: what it does and when to use it.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and simple list behavior, the description covers what it returns and its intended use. The sibling tools provide additional context on the broader workflow.

  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 in the schema, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource ('brewing profiles stored on the Gaggiuino'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like select_profile by focusing on viewing rather than modifying.

  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 instruction 'Use this to see available profiles before selecting one' provides explicit when-to-use context by tying it to a subsequent action. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the sibling select_profile is implicitly implied as the next step.

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