Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_messageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and omits important behaviors such as whether the tool can start a conversation without a conversationId, how it handles invalid conversation IDs, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a messaging tool.

  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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no superfluous words. It is compact and front-loaded, making the core function immediately clear.

  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?

  Despite the tool's technical simplicity, the description lacks critical context about the conversation lifecycle. The existence of sibling tools (start_conversation, end_conversation) implies a workflow, but the description does not clarify whether send_message requires an existing conversation or can initiate one. This ambiguity affects correct usage.

  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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (message and conversationId). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action ('Send') and the object/resource ('a message to the Copilot Studio Agent'). It is distinguishable from siblings like start_conversation and get_conversation_history, though it could be more explicit about whether it sends within an existing conversation or starts a new one.

  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 on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active conversation) or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the intended workflow.

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

• end_conversationB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'End an existing conversation' implies mutation, and 'clean up resources' hints at side effects, but it does not disclose irreversibility, impact on history, or any other behavioral nuances. The description is vague about what cleanup entails.

  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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'End'. Every word earns its place, including the useful addition of 'clean up resources' which hints at side effects without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description is minimally viable, but it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details about consequences, making it less complete than ideal for a terminating action.

  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%: the parameter 'conversationId' is described as 'Conversation ID to terminate'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 uses the specific verb 'End' with the resource 'conversation', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_message' and 'start_conversation' by being the terminating action, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for ending a conversation or exclusions, relying on the agent to infer usage from the verb 'End' and sibling context.

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

• get_conversation_historyB
  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 only says 'Retrieve message history' and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention pagination, ordering, error handling, or authentication requirements. The verb 'retrieve' implies a read operation, but this is not 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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

  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?

  The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the schema covers parameters adequately. However, the description lacks context about response format, message ordering, or usage scenarios, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

  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 already documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Conversation ID' and 'Maximum number of messages to return'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'message history for a conversation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message, start_conversation, and end_conversation, which perform different actions on conversations.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without mentioning context or exclusions, and sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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

• start_conversationB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it resets prior context, returns a conversation ID, affects an existing conversation, or requires any prerequisites. The state-changing nature is implied but not explained.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It fully serves its immediate purpose in minimal words, earning a high score for conciseness.

  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?

  Despite the simple one-parameter schema, the description omits critical context such as the return value, how it interacts with sibling tools, or whether it terminates an existing conversation. With no output schema or annotations, this lack of information leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

  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 schema already provides full coverage for the single optional parameter 'initialMessage' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 specifies the action 'Start' and the resource 'a new conversation' with the target 'Copilot Studio Agent.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message and end_conversation by explicitly indicating a new conversational session.

  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 only implies usage through the verb 'Start,' giving no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of the sibling names suggests lifecycle phases but is not articulated.

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