Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ask_contextA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the service plans retrieval, searches screenshot-derived evidence, and synthesizes a cited answer. It does not mention any destructive side effects (likely none) and gives warning about not repeating calls. A bit more detail on potential latency or state impact would improve, but it's solid.

  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 concise with two short sentences and a paragraph of usage guidelines. All information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

  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?

  Although there are 3 parameters and no output schema shown, the description provides enough context about what the tool does (searches evidence, synthesizes answer). The presence of an output schema (as per context signals) likely covers return details. The description could mention return format briefly, but it is adequate given the schema.

  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 coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptions in the schema. The tool description only implicitly covers the 'question' parameter ('one single comprehensive question') but does not explain 'session_id' or 'max_evidence'. These parameters have defaults but their purpose and effect are not described, hampering correct usage.

  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 recovers missing historical work context via a single question. It specifies the resource ('historical work context') and action ('recover'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_event' by focusing on broad context retrieval rather than a specific event.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use ('once per user request for prior goals, decisions, attempts, rationale, or activity') and when not to ('do not call repeatedly to refine the same question'). Provides clear alternatives: use the returned answer and inspect live state separately, and run parallel tools. This is comprehensive guidance.

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

• get_eventA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It implies read-only inspection with usage constraints, but doesn't explicitly deny side effects or state idempotency.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Perfectly sized for a simple tool.

  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 the simple tool, one parameter, and existence of output schema (unseen but noted), the description provides adequate context for appropriate use, though slightly better parameter guidance would raise this.

  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 has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter event_id. The description does not explain what event_id is or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without guidance.

  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 inspects a single event when provenance matters, and distinguishes it from the sibling ask_context by specifying preference.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says to prefer ask_context's answer and limits inspection to one event per request unless deeper review is requested, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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