Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• s3_list_objectsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 but offers minimal information. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'maxKeys'), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves in practice.

  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—a single, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 an S3 listing operation (involving pagination, filtering, and potential large datasets), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key behavioral traits (e.g., how results are structured, pagination details) or usage context. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective tool selection and invocation.

  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 input schema fully documents all three parameters ('bucket', 'prefix', 'maxKeys') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, 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 ('List') and resource ('objects in an S3 bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 's3_list_buckets' (which lists buckets rather than objects), leaving room for potential confusion about 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention how it differs from 's3_read_object' (which retrieves specific object content) or 's3_list_buckets' (which lists buckets). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

• s3_put_objectC
  2.9/5.0
  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 only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is idempotent, what happens if the key already exists, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. 'Upload' implies a write operation, but no further context is given.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  For a write operation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavior, error handling, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

  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, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('upload') and target ('object to an S3 bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like s3_read_object or s3_delete_object, which would require mentioning it's specifically for writing/creating objects.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like s3_read_object for reading or s3_delete_object for deletion.

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

• s3_read_objectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states this is a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for missing objects), or output format (e.g., binary vs. text). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external storage.

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple read operation, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 interacting with S3 (an external service with potential authentication, errors, and data formats), the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address critical aspects like return type (e.g., file content as bytes/string), error cases, or operational constraints, leaving the agent under-informed.

  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 fully documents both parameters (bucket and key). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid bucket name or key format, nor does it provide examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Read the content') and target ('an object from an S3 bucket'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like s3_list_objects or s3_put_object, which prevents 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like s3_list_objects (for listing objects) or s3_put_object (for writing). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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

• s3_delete_objectB
  3.2/5.0
  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 states the tool deletes an object, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention critical behaviors like irreversibility, error handling (e.g., if the object doesn't exist), permissions required, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

  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's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, auth needs), error responses, or output expectations. For a delete tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

  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%, with both parameters (bucket and key) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or examples. 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an object from an S3 bucket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like s3_list_objects (list), s3_put_object (create/update), and s3_read_object (read). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting buckets), or comparisons to siblings like s3_put_object for updates. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

• s3_list_bucketsB
  3.2/5.0
  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 the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, leaving clear gaps for an AI agent.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information about non-existent 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('S3 buckets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like s3_list_objects (which lists objects within buckets), but the resource specification is specific enough for basic understanding.

  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 like s3_list_objects. The description only states what it does, without context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison to sibling tools.

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