Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• a2a_cancel_taskC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Cancel a running task,' failing to mention side effects, success/failure conditions, or whether cancellation is immediate or reversible. This is insufficient 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is extremely concise (4 words), but it omits critical information. While brevity is valued, the trade-off here is under-specification, so a middle score is appropriate.

  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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is still too sparse. It lacks any information about behavior on success/error, asynchronous nature, or state transitions, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

  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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score 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 ('Cancel') and resource ('a running task'), which is specific and distinct from siblings like a2a_get_task or a2a_send. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other mutation tools like a2a_send, so it falls short of a perfect score.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without any context about typical use cases or when cancellation is appropriate.

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

• a2a_get_taskB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; the description only says 'get' without disclosing any behavioral traits like idempotency, auth needs, or rate limits.

  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?

  Single sentence with key information front-loaded. No wasted words.

  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?

  Lacks output schema and description of return format. For a simple get-by-ID tool, could mention fields like status and result.

  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% - both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the 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?

  The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'current status and result of a task by ID', distinguishing it from siblings like a2a_cancel_task and a2a_send.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., a2a_list_tasks). No mention of prerequisites or scenarios.

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

• a2a_discoverA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'fetches the agent card and registers it,' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., state mutation), required permissions, error handling for invalid URLs, or whether duplicate registrations are handled. The description is too vague for a tool that likely modifies persistent state.

  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: two short sentences that immediately convey the action and outcome. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and basic behavior. However, it lacks details about return values, idempotency, and error scenarios. The sibling tools provide partial context, but the description could be more complete for a new user.

  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 for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds context (e.g., 'A2A agent' and example URL), but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema, such as format constraints or authentication context. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

  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's purpose: to discover an A2A agent at a URL, fetching and registering the agent card. The verb 'discover' and resource 'A2A agent' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like a2a_list_agents (for listing known agents) and a2a_send (for interactions).

  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 implicitly suggests when to use the tool (when you have an agent URL to discover), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like a2a_list_agents for already-known agents. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

• a2a_sendA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (supports polling for async tasks), but it lacks details on error handling, blocking behavior, or side effects, which are important for a tool that waits for results.

  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 short sentences that convey the essential purpose and a notable feature (polling). No unnecessary 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?

  Given the complexity of the tool (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or what 'wait for the result' entails in terms of output structure.

  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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, hence 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the action 'send a message' to a specific resource (A2A agent) and indicates waiting for a result, which is distinct from sibling tools like a2a_get_task or a2a_cancel_task.

  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 use for sending messages and waiting for results, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

• a2a_list_agentsA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only says 'list', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

  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?

  Single sentence, 10 words, no filler. Every word adds value. Ideal 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?

  The description is adequate for a simple list tool with no output schema, but it lacks details about return format, pagination, error handling, or any behavioral context. Given the absence of annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which 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?

  Description clearly states 'List all discovered A2A agents with their capabilities and skills.' This is a specific verb ('List') + resource ('A2A agents'), and distinctly differs from sibling tools like a2a_list_tasks or a2a_cancel_task.

  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 usage when agents need to be listed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• a2a_list_tasksA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('List'), but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. The page_size parameter is not explained in the description.

  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 concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

  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?

  With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, error scenarios, or task metadata. It is adequate but incomplete for a list operation.

  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 is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema ('optionally filtered by context' echoes the context_id param).

  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 action ('List tasks') and the target ('on a remote agent'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like a2a_get_task (single task) and a2a_list_agents (lists agents). The optional filter by context is also mentioned.

  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 usage for listing tasks, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., a2a_get_task for a single task, a2a_cancel_task for cancellation). No exclusions or context triggers are provided.

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