Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_all_subway_timetablesC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (all combinations of days/directions) but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and 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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's comprehensive scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by details about what combinations are included.

  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?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the pagination system (pageNo, numOfRows), the implications of filterNonArrive, or what the delayMsec parameter controls. The agent would struggle to understand the full behavior and output format from this description alone.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions the need to obtain stationId from another tool, but this is already covered in the schema's parameter description.

  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: retrieving all timetables for a subway station across all days and directions. It specifies the scope ('모든 요일, 모든 방향') and the comprehensive nature of the results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_subway_timetable' tool, which likely provides more specific filtering options.

  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 'get_subway_timetable'. It mentions that stationId can be obtained from 'search_subway_station', but this is parameter documentation rather than usage context. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with sibling tools.

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

• get_subway_timetableC
  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 states what the tool does (retrieves timetables) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by pageNo/numOfRows parameters), filtering behavior (implied by filterNonArrive), response format, error conditions, or rate limits. For a read operation with multiple parameters, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like pagination, filtering, response format, or error handling. For a tool with multiple operational parameters and no structured output definition, the description should provide more context to guide 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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions '요일별, 상하행별 시간표' (timetables by day type and direction), which aligns with the dailyType and upDownType parameters, but doesn't explain the other parameters (stationId, pageNo, numOfRows, filterNonArrive). With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

  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: '지하철역의 시간표를 조회합니다' (retrieves subway station timetables). It specifies the resource (subway station timetables) and scope (by day type and direction). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_subway_timetables' or 'search_subway_station', which would be needed for a perfect score.

  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 sibling tools like 'get_all_subway_timetables' or 'search_subway_station', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., that stationId must be obtained from another tool first, as hinted in the schema but not in the description). This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

• search_subway_stationA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the search functionality, the return data structure (station ID, name, line information), and the automatic suffix removal feature. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like search accuracy, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond the parameters.

  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 sized with two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral detail about suffix handling with a clear example. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words.

  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?

  For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It covers the main functionality and a key behavioral feature (suffix removal), but doesn't describe the return format in detail or potential error scenarios 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.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the automatic suffix removal which relates to 'stationName' parameter processing, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

  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 ('검색합니다' - searches), resource ('지하철역 정보' - subway station information), and scope ('역 이름으로' - by station name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_all_subway_timetables' and 'get_subway_timetable' by focusing on station information search rather than timetable retrieval.

  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 context (searching by station name) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling timetable tools. It provides some guidance about the automatic suffix removal feature, but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' comparisons with alternatives.

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