Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• plan_trip_route_toolC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the planning action and output content; it does not mention whether the tool performs any side effects, network access, or other behavioral characteristics. For a planning tool this is less critical, but the absence of any behavioral context leaves gaps.

  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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The phrase 'with Qwen-Agent' adds no clear value and could confuse the purpose.

  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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what inputs mean, what the output contains, or when this tool should be selected over sibling tools. The output schema exists but the description fails to provide the necessary contextual framing.

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

  Parameters1/5

  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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention origin, destination, days, budget level, pace, interests, or travelers. The phrase 'multi-day route' and 'daily food recommendations' vaguely imply days and food needs, but no actual parameter semantics are provided.

  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 tool's function: 'Plan a multi-day route... including daily food recommendations.' It uses a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from budget, packing, and food-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'plan_trip_route_local_tool', and 'with Qwen-Agent' is somewhat ambiguous.

  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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools suggest potential use cases (local planning, budget estimation, food recommendations), but the description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• recommend_food_experiences_toolC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a high-level function and does not disclose required inputs, return format, side effects, or limitations, leaving the agent to guess about behavior.

  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 a single concise sentence and easily front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified, which reduces its usefulness, so it earns a mid-range score rather than a higher one.

  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?

  The tool has four parameters and an output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. It does not explain how parameters relate to the outputs or offer any usage guidance, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only hints at dietary preferences via 'dietary notes' and does not explain destination, budget_level, days, or their relationships. This is minimal compensation for four parameters.

  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 specific verb ('Recommend') and identifies the resource (food districts, meal themes, dietary notes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like route planning or budget estimation. However, it lacks mention of inputs like destination or budget, making it slightly less explicit than a 5.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether it is solely for food recommendations or how it complements tools like estimate_trip_budget_tool or suggest_packing_list_tool.

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

• estimate_trip_budget_toolB
  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 the full burden. It states the tool 'estimates' costs but does not disclose any limitations, data sources, accuracy, or that it is a read-only calculation. There is no mention of output format or that estimates are not reservations.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the tool's action and scope, making it highly scannable and efficient.

  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?

  With no annotations, a 4-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It omits the meaning of budget_level, how to adapt the estimate for different group sizes, or what data the estimate is based upon. The output schema may provide return structure, but the description alone is insufficient for correct parameter selection.

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

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It does not explain what budget_level values are accepted, how days/travelers influence the estimate, or that destination is a required free-text string. The listed cost categories do not map to any schema properties.

  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 the specific verb 'estimate' and identifies the resource as trip budget, listing the cost categories (lodging, food, transport, attractions, contingency). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like route planning, packing lists, and food recommendations.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool name and description: this is for planning travel budgets, distinct from route or packing tools. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or excluded cases.

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

• plan_trip_route_local_toolB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details ('deterministic' and 'offline') and mentions the daily food recommendation feature. However, it does not explain what 'offline' means in practice, data sources, limitations, or any side effects, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is efficient and to the point, though it could be expanded with more useful context without becoming verbose.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema, the tool has 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain required inputs, how 'deterministic offline' affects behavior, or how this tool differs in usage from sibling tools. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably configure and invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no parameter-level guidance. None of the 7 parameters (origin, destination, days, budget_level, pace, interests, travelers) are explained, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The phrase 'daily food recommendations' only loosely hints at 'days' without clarifying its semantics.

  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 'Plan a deterministic offline route with daily food recommendations' clearly states the action (Plan), the resource (route), and the distinguishing feature (offline, deterministic, daily food recommendations). It differentiates from sibling tools like plan_trip_route_tool by emphasizing 'offline' and from recommend_food_experiences_tool by integrating food into the route.

  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 cases (offline and deterministic planning), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_trip_route_tool. No exclusions or explicit alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• suggest_packing_list_toolA
  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 the full burden. It states the high-level purpose but does not disclose what 'suggest' returns (e.g., a list), how the days parameter affects recommendations, or any edge-case behavior. The description is too sparse to be behaviorally transparent.

  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, tightly worded sentence with no redundant information. Key terms (packing items, destination, season, activity mix) are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

  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 tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters, and an output schema exists. The description captures the core purpose but omits the required days parameter, provides no usage guidance or exclusions, and does not mention what the output will be (though output schema partially covers that). Overall, it is minimally complete but has notable gaps.

  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 description mentions destination, season, and activity mix, covering 3 of 4 parameters. However, the required 'days' parameter is not mentioned, and schema descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage). The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

  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 'suggest' with resource 'packing items' and names the key inputs (destination, season, activity mix). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_trip_route_tool and estimate_trip_budget_tool.

  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 context is clear: this tool is for generating packing suggestions, while siblings handle routes, budgets, and food. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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