Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_user_infoB
  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 carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive, but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks behavioral and parametric details that would enhance completeness for agent use.

  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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter is 'by ID'. However, it doesn't detail the ID format, constraints, or examples. With 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the minimal addition slightly compensates for the schema 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('user information'), specifying it's by ID. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, but none are related tools (add, greet, multiply), so differentiation isn't needed. It's specific enough to understand the core function.

  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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With unrelated siblings, explicit alternatives aren't needed, but general usage context is missing.

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

• greetB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Greet') but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—e.g., whether it returns a message, logs the greeting, or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Greet a person by name'. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for a simple tool.

  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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects or usage context, which are needed since annotations are absent. The output schema may cover return values, but the description should still provide more context for effective use.

  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?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is a 'name' for greeting, but it doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema coverage is low, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details.

  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 with a specific verb ('Greet') and resource ('a person by name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'multiply', which have completely different functions, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what 'greet' entails.

  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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for formal or informal greetings, or if it should be used in specific scenarios. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• addB
  3.2/5.0
  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. While 'Add two numbers together' implies a simple computation, it doesn't address potential issues like integer overflow, error handling, or whether this is a pure function. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic 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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

  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 the tool's simplicity (two integer parameters, has output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. With no annotations and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it misses opportunities to clarify behavioral aspects or usage guidelines that would help an agent use it effectively.

  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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. By specifying 'two numbers together,' it clarifies that both parameters are numeric operands for addition, compensating for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions. However, it doesn't detail the specific roles of 'a' and 'b' beyond being numbers to add.

  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 'Add two numbers together' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the 'multiply' sibling tool, which performs a different mathematical operation on the same type of inputs.

  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 like 'multiply' for mathematical operations. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• multiplyB
  3.2/5.0
  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. The description only states what the tool does (multiplication) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, mathematical precision, or what happens with large numbers. For a mathematical operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 perfectly concise: 'Multiply two numbers together' - a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for this simple mathematical operation. Every word earns its place.

  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 this is a simple mathematical tool with an output schema (which presumably describes the result), the description is reasonably complete for the core functionality. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks behavioral context that would be helpful for an agent. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'two numbers' which maps to the two parameters, but doesn't add meaning beyond what's obvious from the parameter names 'a' and 'b'. It doesn't explain that these are integers (from schema), provide examples, or discuss edge cases. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

  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: 'Multiply two numbers together' - a specific verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' by specifying multiplication rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the integer type restriction from the schema.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'add' for different mathematical operations, nor does it provide context about when multiplication is appropriate versus other operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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