Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cancel_visitA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the action and return value but omits side effects, permissions required, or failure modes (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible or allowed after certain states). This is insufficient 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 well-structured with a clear purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter explanations. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the action. Slightly verbose in parameter details but efficient overall.

  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?

  No output schema or annotations exist, so completeness relies on the description. It covers how to get parameters, what the tool does, and what it returns ('raw API response'). However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or constraints (e.g., cancellation window). Adequate but not thorough.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter's meaning: visit_id (from creation), apartment_id (from get_user_multiprofile_info), and fields (dot-notation filtering). It adds significant context 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 clearly states the tool cancels a pre-approved visit by visit ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_expected, list_visits) which handle listing, not cancellation.

  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 explicitly says when to use it (user wants to cancel a delivery approval) and provides step-by-step instructions for obtaining required IDs from get_user_multiprofile_info. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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

• get_user_multiprofile_infoA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses return structure (user, family, apartments, passCodes, notificationSettings, hasMultipleProfile) and explains that specifying fields avoids fetching full profile. No annotations provided, but description covers behavior well; could explicitly state read-only nature.

  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?

  Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, args, returns. Slightly verbose due to repeated examples, but front-loaded and easy to parse.

  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?

  With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: parameter usage, return structure, and guidance for common scenarios.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description thoroughly explains the 'fields' parameter: dot-notation paths, examples, default behavior, and advice to always specify fields to limit response. Adds crucial meaning beyond the raw 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 'Fetch the authenticated user's multiprofile information' and provides numerous specific use cases (e.g., 'what apartments do I have?', 'show my profile'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle visits.

  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?

  Explicit guidance on when to use: user queries about profile, apartments, family, society, pass codes. Also instructs to use first when another tool needs an apartment_id, with detailed steps for apartment matching.

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

• list_visitsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details return categories, pagination behavior, and field usage. Does not explicitly state idempotency or safety, but as a list operation it is clearly non-destructive.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections, but slightly verbose given the complexity. However, every sentence adds value and no redundancy. Minor trim potential.

  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?

  No output schema, but description fully explains return categories and content. Also addresses prerequisite (apartment_id retrieval). No missing information for a list tool with no output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds extensive meaning: explains apartment_id source, page/page_size defaults, and fields parameter with concrete examples and recommendations. This far exceeds schema information.

  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 lists current, past, and denied visits for an apartment. It distinguishes from the sibling tool list_expected by explicitly stating what not to use it for.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use examples (e.g., 'who's at the gate?') and when-not-to-use (pending pre-approvals, use list_expected). Also instructs to call get_user_multiprofile_info first to obtain apartment_id.

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

• list_expectedA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains return format (raw API response with visit ID, company, time window) and mentions pagination/sorting defaults. Could explicitly state read-only nature, but implied as list 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?

  Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter documentation in a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

  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?

  Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return format, and prerequisite call. Sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description compensates with detailed explanations for each parameter: apartment_id source, page/page_size defaults, sort_order enum, fields dot-notation filtering.

  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 it lists pre-approved deliveries pending arrival, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'expected deliveries'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_visits' which is for historical gate activity.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use (user query examples like 'what have I pre-approved?') and when-not-to-use (historical: use list_visits). Also specifies prerequisite to call get_user_multiprofile_info to obtain apartment_id.

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