Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• councly_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by describing different return scenarios (in-progress, completed, failed) and what information each provides. However, it doesn't mention error handling beyond 'error message', rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only 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 efficiently structured with three distinct parts: purpose statement, return value scenarios, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 single-parameter status-checking tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, return scenarios, and usage guidelines. It could be more complete by explicitly stating this is a read-only operation and providing more detail about error conditions, but it covers the essential information an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

  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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'hearing_id' well-documented as a UUID. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does all the work.

  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 as 'Check the status of a council hearing' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'councly_hearing' by focusing on status checking rather than hearing creation/management, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

  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 usage guidance: 'Use this to check on hearings created with wait=false, or to retrieve past hearing results.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, including specific scenarios and timing considerations.

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

• councly_hearingA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the asynchronous nature of hearings, default waiting behavior, cost implications (6-17 credits), and the ability to check status with another tool. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a tool with cost implications.

  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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, use cases, operational details, and cost information. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose. While slightly longer than minimal, the information density is high with no wasted text. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

  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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about the tool's behavior, use cases, and operational characteristics. It covers the asynchronous nature, cost implications, and relationship to the sibling tool. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions cost variations by preset and explains the wait parameter's relationship to councly_status. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't add significant additional parameter context.

  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: 'Create a council hearing where multiple LLMs debate a topic and a moderator synthesizes the verdict.' It specifies the action (create), resource (council hearing), and distinct mechanism (multiple LLMs debating with moderator synthesis). This differentiates it from the sibling tool councly_status, which checks status rather than creating hearings.

  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 usage guidance with a dedicated 'Use cases' section listing four scenarios (code review, technical decisions, problem solving, brainstorming). It also distinguishes when to use this tool vs. alternatives by explaining the wait parameter behavior and referencing councly_status for checking status later. This gives clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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