Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ackA
  3.8/5.0
  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 key behavioral trait: acknowledgment permanently deletes messages and is irreversible outside TTL expiry. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or unknown IDs, but the main destructive side effect is clearly stated.

  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 with no wasted words, front-loading the action and effect before adding the permanence note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

  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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, invocation, and effect. Missing details like return value or error behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity, though the absence of any output schema leaves some ambiguity.

  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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It explicitly says 'Pass a list of message IDs to acknowledge', which directly explains the single message_ids parameter. It does not add constraints or examples beyond what the parameter name and schema already convey.

  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 a specific action ('Acknowledge and delete messages') and resource ('messages by their IDs'), and adds the unique capability of permanent removal. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

  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 the use case: when you want to permanently remove messages, noting TTL expiry as the only alternative. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or how it compares with dispatch, peek, or who, so usage guidance is suggestive rather than prescriptive.

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

• whoA
  4.3/5.0
  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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or any limitations. This is adequate for a simple tool but not richly transparent.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the necessary information with no filler. Every word contributes value.

  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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no critical gaps.

  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, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters and no ambiguity to resolve.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('all currently connected agents'), and what is returned ('their status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dispatch, ack, and peek, which imply different actions.

  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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to see which agents are currently connected and their status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple no-argument query tool, the context is clear.

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

• dispatchA
  4.5/5.0
  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, and it covers key behaviors: sending, auto-expiry via ttl, must_read preventing auto-expiry, and the return of confirmation plus pending messages. It does not mention failure modes or delivery guarantees, but the core side effects are disclosed.

  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 three sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, and optional parameters are compactly summarized. Every sentence adds useful information.

  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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all optional parameters and the return value. Minor gaps remain around target identifier format and interaction with ack/peek/who, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

  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%, so the description must compensate. It explains priority values, thread grouping, reply_to references, payload as a dict, ttl in seconds, must_read preventing expiry, and target scope via 'another agent or all agents.' This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message to another agent or all agents.' This clearly differentiates dispatch from sibling tools like ack, peek, and who, which imply receiving, inspecting, and querying rather than sending.

  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?

  It gives clear operational guidance, such as using priority='urgent' for time-sensitive messages and explaining when to use optional fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the send-oriented purpose is unambiguous from the context.

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

• peekA
  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 carries the full burden. It discloses that peek is non-destructive ('without deleting them'), that it defaults to only new/unread messages, that it also returns delivery receipts, and that the metadata mode is ~80% smaller. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not explain whether peeking changes read state or how delivery receipts are structured.

  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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then logically grouped into mode and since sections. Every sentence adds value, and the labeled sections make the details easy to scan despite the length. No filler or repetition is present.

  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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining return values: full content plus payload for the default mode, and an explicit field list for metadata mode. It also mentions delivery receipts. Minor omissions such as pagination, limits, or exact delivery receipt format keep it from being fully comprehensive, but it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

  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%, so the description must compensate for everything. It explains all four parameters: mode with both allowed values and their effects, since with ISO8601 format and filter semantics, thread_id with a concrete use case, and include_read with a clear behavioral toggle. This fully covers the input schema's gaps.

  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-resource pair: 'Read incoming messages without deleting them,' which immediately distinguishes peek as a non-destructive read operation. It also names sibling ack() and contrasts peek against acknowledgement, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening their schemas.

  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 gives clear conditional guidance: use include_read=true to see all unacknowledged messages, filter by thread_id for a specific conversation, and use ack() when done. It also recommends the metadata mode 'for defensive polling,' which gives a concrete context for choosing a mode. It does not explicitly contrast peek with dispatch or who, but enough context is present.

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