Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_peopleA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-style lookup and describes the computed outputs, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as pagination, inclusion of zero-load employees, or any operational constraints.

  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 compact and well-structured: action, filter behavior, returned fields, and example use cases. Each sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

  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 that there are no required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the main operational needs. The only notable gap is that it does not explain how to distinguish this tool from its siblings when they overlap in subject matter.

  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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a useful semantic note that filters are optional and combine additively, but it does not significantly extend the already-complete 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 uses a clear verb and resource: find employees and view their load across projects. It specifies the returned fields (role, grade, current load, free capacity), making the tool's purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like utilization_summary or find_projects.

  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 explicit use cases: 'who is free', 'who is on a project', 'is there capacity for a new task'. It also states that filters are optional and additive. It does not mention when to prefer or avoid sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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

• find_projectsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates the return behavior (a project card with status, manager, hourly rate) and implies a read-only search operation. It does not cover every edge behavior like pagination or sorting, but what it states is clear and useful.

  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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence explains what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives usage guidance and points to the relevant sibling. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the search criteria, return contents, and when to choose this tool. Minor details such as result ordering or limits are absent, but they are not critical for this simple tool.

  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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema. The description restates the parameter meaning and adds the fact that an empty query returns all projects, which is helpful, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

  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 states the tool finds agency projects by code, name, or client and returns a project card with status, manager, and hourly rate. It is easy to distinguish from find_people, which is explicitly named as the alternative for people-related questions.

  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 explicit guidance: use find_projects when you need facts about a specific project, and use find_people for questions about people. It does not mention utilization_summary, but the provided context and tool name make the intended scope reasonably clear.

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

• utilization_summaryA
  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 meets it: it discloses that the tool aggregates across the entire team ('всей команды'), produces three specific metrics, and implies a non-destructive read/aggregation operation. For a 0-parameter summary tool there are no hidden side effects left undisclosed.

  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?

  Two compact sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the function and output metrics, the second adds usage boundaries. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Given an output schema exists (so return values are covered structurally), 0 parameters, and the sibling context, the description is complete for correct selection and invocation: it states scope, outputs, usage context, and exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool is missing.

  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 an empty schema, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters; the schema trivially covers 100% of them.

  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 ('Посчитать' / calculate) with a clear resource (team workload summary) and enumerates concrete outputs: overloaded count, idle count, and average load. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by stating it is not for finding a specific person.

  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 the tool ('для отчётов и обзоров' / for reports and reviews) and provides a clear when-not ('не для поиска конкретного человека' / not for finding a specific person), implying find_people as the alternative. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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