Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• legal_ask_followup_questionB
  3.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It lists 'Key features' like 'Automatic detection of legal domains' and 'Legal terminology formatting,' which hint at functionality, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  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 well-structured with clear sections ('When to use this tool,' 'Key features'), making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some points. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining domain-specific options.

  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 complexity (legal domain tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what happens when the tool is invoked, but it provides enough context for basic use.

  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 schema already documents all three parameters (question, options, context) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips for parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or 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 tool's purpose as 'asking follow-up questions in legal contexts' and 'gather additional information needed for legal analysis,' which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like legal_attempt_completion or legal_think, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

  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 includes a 'When to use this tool' section with four clear scenarios (e.g., 'When you need additional information to complete a legal analysis'), providing explicit guidance on appropriate contexts. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, but the scenarios are well-defined and helpful.

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

• legal_attempt_completionB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions formatting features but doesn't address permissions needed, whether it modifies data, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually behaves.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, key features) and efficiently communicates core information. While slightly verbose in listing multiple 'when to use' examples, each sentence adds value and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

  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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks sufficient behavioral details. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't adequately address how it works, what permissions are needed, or what the output format will be. This leaves gaps for a tool that presumably generates formatted legal documents.

  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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no specific information about parameter usage, relationships, or examples beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained how parameters interact with the formatting features mentioned.

  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 purpose: 'presenting legal analysis results and conclusions' with specific functions like formatting, citation extraction, and document structuring. It distinguishes from sibling tools (legal_ask_followup_question, legal_think) by focusing on final presentation rather than analysis or questioning, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

  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 'When to use this tool' section provides clear context: presenting final results, summarizing findings, providing structured opinions, and concluding legal reasoning. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on completion rather than intermediate steps, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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

• legal_thinkA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions key features like automatic domain detection, guidance/templates, citation support, revision capabilities, and thought quality feedback, which gives useful context about how the tool behaves. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only analysis tool or if it modifies data, what permissions might be needed, or any 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, key features) and each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 10 parameters, though the 'Key features' section could be more concise as some items overlap with earlier content.

  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 complex legal reasoning tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but has significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool outputs (no output schema), doesn't address behavioral constraints, and while it mentions legal domains, it doesn't fully explain how the complex parameter set works together for the reasoning process.

  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 schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions general capabilities like domain detection and revision, but doesn't explain how parameters like 'category' or 'isRevision' relate to these features. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 purpose as 'structured legal reasoning that helps analyze complex legal issues' and mentions specific legal domains like ANSC contestations, consumer protection, and contract analysis. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reasoning rather than follow-up questions or completion attempts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

  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 'When to use this tool' section provides clear guidance on four specific scenarios like breaking down complex legal problems and analyzing legal requirements. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is well-defined for legal reasoning tasks.

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