Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• register_for_eventC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write operation ('Register') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon successful registration (e.g., confirmation email). This leaves significant gaps 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place by conveying the core action and resource.

  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?

  Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success or failure, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

  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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the event_id comes from a listing, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 ('Register for') and resource ('a Network School event'), specifying it uses an event ID from the event listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_todays_events or search_events, which are read-only queries rather than write operations.

  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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning the event ID comes from the event listing, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when registration is open vs. closed) or any prerequisites beyond having an event ID. No explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are included.

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

• search_eventsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states the search functionality without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information (search functionality and target resource).

  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?

  For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (event objects, IDs, summaries), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). Given the lack of structured data elsewhere, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

  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 the single 'query' parameter. The description adds marginal value by specifying it searches 'by name or description', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or search behavior details beyond what the schema indicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb ('search') and resource ('Network School events'), and specifies the searchable fields ('by name or description'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_wiki' which searches a different resource, or 'get_todays_events'/'get_upcoming_events' which retrieve events without search functionality.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_todays_events' or 'get_upcoming_events'. It doesn't indicate whether this is for broad searches versus filtered retrieval, or mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• search_wikiC
  2.9/5.0
  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. It states the action 'search' but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or what happens on errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing use cases, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

  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's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on results and limitations would improve completeness for agent invocation.

  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%, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema (including examples like 'wifi password'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax or result relevance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  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 verb 'search' and the resource 'Network School wiki', specifying the content scope (visas, internet, food, getting started, and more). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_events, which searches events rather than wiki content, though this distinction is implied by the resource type.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the types of information available (visas, internet, etc.) but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like search_events for event-related queries. Usage is implied by the content scope but not explicitly stated.

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

• get_todays_eventsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' events, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'events' entail (e.g., structure, fields), how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('Network School events happening today'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_upcoming_events' or 'search_events', which prevents a perfect score, but the temporal scope 'today' provides some implicit distinction.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_upcoming_events' or 'search_events'. It implies usage for today's events only, but doesn't specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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

• get_upcoming_eventsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 retrieving events but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries data.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a high score for conciseness.

  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 simple input schema (1 parameter with full coverage) and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output, making it minimally viable with clear gaps.

  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, fully documenting the 'days' parameter with its type, description, and default. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('Network School events happening in the next N days'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_todays_events or search_events, which limits it to a 4 rather than a 5.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_todays_events or search_events. It implies usage for upcoming events but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, resulting in a minimal score.

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