Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_forecastC
  2.7/5.0
  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 at a high level ('get forecast data') without explaining what the response contains, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The two-sentence structure is efficient with no wasted words. However, the front-loading could be improved as the parameter documentation immediately follows the purpose statement without additional context.

  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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 simple parameters, the description provides the minimum viable information. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool present, the description should do more to distinguish this tool and explain its behavioral characteristics. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in contextual information.

  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 includes parameter information in the Args section, documenting both latitude and longitude parameters with their types. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing this parameter documentation. The parameter documentation is minimal but covers the basics, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is low.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the purpose ('獲取特定位置的預報資料' - 'Get forecast data for a specific location') which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the action (get/retrieve) and resource (forecast data) but doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'get_alerts' tool or provide details about what type of forecast data (weather, temperature, precipitation, etc.).

  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 the sibling 'get_alerts' tool or provide any context about when this forecast tool is appropriate versus other tools that might exist. There's no information about prerequisites or constraints.

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

• get_alertsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 mentions what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid state codes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, Args section with parameter details, and Returns section. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly.

  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 has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage but an output schema exists (returns string), the description provides adequate basic context. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics reasonably well. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context about what happens with invalid inputs, authentication needs, or rate limits to be fully complete.

  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. It specifies that the 'state' parameter should be a US state abbreviation and provides examples ('CA', 'TX', 'NY'). This clarifies the expected format and valid values, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't mention whether all 50 states are supported or if there are restrictions.

  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 '獲取美國特定州份的警報資料' (Get alert data for specific US states), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_forecast' by focusing on alerts rather than weather forecasts. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of alerts (weather, emergency, etc.), keeping it from 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by specifying '美國特定州份' (specific US states), suggesting it should be used for US state alerts. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the 'get_forecast' sibling tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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