Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• getCurrentTimetableB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results include real-time info like delays, but omits behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., missing station). Minimal added context beyond tool name.

  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 action and resource, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and output contents. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details that would help an agent decide when to invoke it, especially given sibling tools.

  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% with a well-described parameter (evaNo). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's example and format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation.

  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 'Ruft ab' (retrieves) and the resource 'aktuellen Fahrplandaten einer bestimmten Bahnhofsstation' (current timetable data of a specific station). It differentiates from siblings by implying real-time vs planned timetable, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide any context for selection among siblings like getPlannedTimetable or getRecentChanges.

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

• findStationsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a list of matching stations without detailing behavior like case sensitivity, matching logic, or 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?

  Two clear sentences with no superfluous information. 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 tool's simplicity, the description covers basic purpose and parameter. However, it omits return format and error handling, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

  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% for the single parameter, and the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides (both mention pattern can be name or EVA number). Minimal added value.

  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 searches the station directory by pattern (name or EVA number). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools which are timetable-related.

  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 specifies the input can be station name or EVA number but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but not explicitly stated.

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

• getPlannedTimetableA
  3.8/5.0
  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 the purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The agent cannot assess safety or cost of invocation.

  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 two sentences in German, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a secondary sentence on usage context. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

  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 simplicity of the tool (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core information: what data is fetched and for what purpose. Minor gaps include lack of output format hints and comparison with siblings, but it is largely sufficient for an agent.

  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% with clear descriptions and examples for each parameter (date, hour, evaNo). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Holt die geplanten Fahrplandaten') and the resource (planned timetable data for a station, date, and hour). It differentiates from siblings by highlighting 'planned' nature, contrasting with 'current' or 'recent changes'.

  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 explicitly states it is useful for planning ahead and getting future train info, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude use when real-time data is needed or name alternatives like 'getCurrentTimetable'.

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

• getRecentChangesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool retrieves real-time updates and lists types of changes, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

  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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

  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 with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data type. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination, which could be helpful.

  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%, and the description adds no extra information about the evaNo parameter beyond what the schema already includes. The schema already provides an example, so baseline score applies.

  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 'ermittelt' (retrieves) and the resource 'neuesten Fahrplanänderungen' (latest schedule changes) for a specific station. It also lists examples like delays, platform changes, and cancellations. This distinguishes it from siblings like getCurrentTimetable and getPlannedTimetable.

  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 real-time changes are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings is provided.

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