Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gmail_send_emailC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a send operation (implying mutation/write) but doesn't mention authentication requirements (though the schema shows google_access_token parameter), rate limits, error conditions, what happens on success/failure, or whether emails are sent immediately or queued. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's implied by 'send'.

  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 that states the core purpose and key feature (attachments) with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success/failure indicators), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral aspects are largely undocumented given this is a write operation with potential side effects.

  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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by mentioning 'optional file attachments' which helps contextualize the attachments parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('send an email') and resource ('via Gmail') with a specific feature mention ('optional file attachments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (gmail_get_email_body_chunk, gmail_get_recent_emails) by being a write operation rather than a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings for comparison.

  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 or when not to use it. It mentions 'optional file attachments' but doesn't explain when to use attachments versus inline content, nor does it reference the sibling tools for different email-related tasks.

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

• gmail_get_email_body_chunkB
  3.2/5.0
  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 mentions the chunk size (1k characters) and offset behavior, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid offsets), authentication requirements (implied by google_access_token but not explained), rate limits, or what happens if the email body is shorter than the offset. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external data.

  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 that front-loads the core functionality. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 handling email data with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., plain text, HTML), error cases, or how partial chunks are handled. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it fails to provide enough context for reliable use by an AI 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (google_access_token, message_id, thread_id, offset). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the offset parameter and default behavior, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema offers, such as how message_id and thread_id interact or format requirements.

  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 ('Get'), resource ('a 1k character chunk of an email body'), and scope ('starting from the specified offset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_get_recent_emails (which lists emails) and gmail_send_email (which sends emails). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a message_id or thread_id), nor does it explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate (e.g., for large email bodies) versus using other tools. Usage is implied 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.

• gmail_get_recent_emailsA
  3.5/5.0
  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. It discloses the return format (metadata, snippets, and first 1k chars of body) and the scope ('most recent'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'). The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none are provided.

  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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details about the return data. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

  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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and return format, but lacks details on authentication requirements (beyond the parameter), error cases, or how 'most recent' is determined (e.g., sorting by date). With no output schema, it should ideally describe the response structure more fully, but the mention of metadata/snippets/body chars provides some context.

  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 (google_access_token, max_results, unread_only) with their types and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining OAuth2 scopes or how 'most recent' interacts with max_results/unread_only. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Get the most recent emails') and resource ('from Gmail'), specifying what data is returned (metadata, snippets, and first 1k chars of body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_get_email_body_chunk (which gets specific body chunks) and gmail_send_email (which sends emails). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation in the description text itself.

  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 retrieving recent emails with metadata and partial body content, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites (like authentication needs) are mentioned, though the need for a google_access_token is clear from the schema.

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