Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• expert_modelC
  2.4/5.0
  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. It mentions 'communicate with an expert' and describes parameters, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the tool does (e.g., sends instructions, receives output), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The description is too minimal to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving key behaviors unclear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is concise with a brief purpose statement and parameter list, but it's not optimally structured. The purpose is front-loaded, but the parameter explanations are minimal and could be more informative. It avoids waste, but given the complexity, it feels under-specified rather than efficiently concise, earning a baseline score.

  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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how 'output' is used as an input, or the interaction flow with the expert. The lack of behavioral details and minimal parameter semantics makes it inadequate for proper tool invocation, especially without structured support.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'name: The name of the expert to communicate with'), but these are basic and don't add significant meaning beyond what the schema titles imply. For example, 'output' is described as 'The answer from the expert based on the instructions', which clarifies it's an input parameter for the answer, but overall, the semantics are insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema coverage.

  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 'Use this tool to communicate with an expert' which provides a basic purpose, but it's vague about what 'communicate' entails (e.g., querying, consulting, getting advice). It doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'ready_to_answer', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear enough to understand the general function but lacks specificity and sibling 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 the sibling 'ready_to_answer' or any alternatives. It includes a note about iteration ('Start with 1'), which hints at usage in a sequence, but this is more of a parameter instruction than contextual guidance. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage advice, making it minimally helpful for selection.

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

• ready_to_answerB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions that the tool is used when 'ready to present your final answer,' implying it might trigger a submission or output action, but it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (e.g., whether it logs, notifies, or finalizes). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently states the usage condition without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the key information and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context about when to use it. However, it lacks details on what the tool does (e.g., behavioral outcomes or return values), which is a gap for a tool that likely triggers a significant action like finalizing an answer. This makes it minimally adequate but incomplete.

  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 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't have to compensate for any gaps.

  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 tool is used when 'ready to present your final answer,' which indicates its purpose is to signal completion of a verification process. However, it doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., submits, logs, or finalizes the answer), making it somewhat vague. It distinguishes from sibling 'expert_model' by focusing on answer presentation rather than expert consultation.

  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 states when to use this tool: 'when you already obtained or verified the final solution with at least two independent experts.' This provides clear context and prerequisites. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives like 'expert_model,' which could be used for obtaining expert input instead.

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