Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_messageB
  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. It states that the tool sends a message but omits important behavioral details such as whether the sender must be registered, persistence of messages, rate limits, or confirmation of delivery.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and the action verb is front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

  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 parameter structure (all required, no nested objects, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but leaves out behavioral context like success/error responses or authentication requirements.

  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% coverage with thorough descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Send a message to another terminal' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'get_messages' by noting the target can read with that tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'register' or 'list_terminals'.

  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 hints at using 'get_messages' for reading but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid 'send_message' itself. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives.

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

• list_terminalsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation but lacks any details about side effects, permissions required, or what 'registered' means. The simplicity of the tool prevents a lower score but the omission of behavioral nuance is notable.

  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 immediately conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  For a parameterless tool, the description provides the minimum viable information. However, it fails to explain what a terminal is in this context, what the output contains (no output schema), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'send_message'. The simplicity of the tool modestly compensates.

  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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; it does not detract but also does not enhance understanding.

  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 'list' and the resource 'terminals'. It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages', which also lists resources, missing an opportunity to clarify the domain scope.

  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 instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'register' or 'get_messages'. Without context, an AI agent may not know that terminals must be listed before sending messages, for example.

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

• watch_messagesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes blocking behavior and timeout, but omits what is returned (message content? confirmation?) and behavior on timeout. No annotations to supplement.

  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, no extraneous words.

  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?

  Missing critical info about return value and whether it is a synthetic or real-time wait. With no output schema, description should explain what the tool returns.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema.

  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?

  Clearly states verb ('Block and wait') and resource ('message for this terminal'). Distinguishes from siblings like get_messages (non-blocking retrieval) and send_message.

  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?

  Implies a blocking use case for real-time waiting, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_messages (polling) or alternatives.

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

• get_messagesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (read and optionally delete) but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

  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 very concise at two short sentences, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action.

  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 description omits the return format, which is important since there is no output schema. While the tool is simple, more detail on what 'returns all messages' means (e.g., array of strings) would improve completeness.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool reads messages and optionally deletes them. It distinguishes from siblings like list_terminals, register, send_message, and watch_messages by focusing on reading and optional deletion.

  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 implies that this tool is for one-time reading of messages, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus watch_messages for continuous monitoring, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

• registerA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It explains that registration enables message reception but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing registrations, idempotency, or required permissions. Moderate transparency.

  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, both front-loaded with key information. No extraneous words, every sentence serves a purpose.

  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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its intended effect. Minor gap: it does not describe return values or error conditions, but the context is largely complete.

  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 has 100% coverage and already includes a description for the 'name' parameter. The tool description adds examples but does not significantly extend meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Register this terminal with a name' and gives examples like A1, A2. It also explains the purpose: enabling other terminals to send messages to the registered name. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_message and get_messages.

  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 implies that registration is a prerequisite for receiving messages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or exclusions, such as when not to use it.

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