Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sheets_list_tabsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, require special permissions, or whether it includes hidden tabs. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

  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, precise sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning its role as a discovery tool relative to siblings and explicitly noting its read-only nature. Still, it is sufficient for a basic list operation.

  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?

  The only parameter (spreadsheet_id) has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a spreadsheet' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and does not explain what an ID is or how to obtain it. This does not adequately compensate for the missing schema description.

  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 (List) and the specific resource (tab/sheet names and dimensions). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools sheets_read and sheets_write by focusing on tab metadata rather than cell data.

  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?

  No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's a discovery step before reading/writing, but this is not stated. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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

• sheets_readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable warning that returned cell content is untrusted and potentially attacker-controlled, which is crucial for safe handling. It does not mention other behaviors like error handling or rate limits, but the security caveat is significant.

  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 with no filler: the first defines the action and format, the second delivers an essential security warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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?

  For a simple read tool with only two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage (range format) and a key security consideration. An output schema exists, so return type details are not needed. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention spreadsheet_id provenance.

  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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'range' parameter with an A1 notation example ('Bugs!A1:D50'), which adds meaning. However, the 'spreadsheet_id' parameter is not described, leaving a gap for one of only two parameters.

  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 'Read cell values from a Google Sheet range' with a concrete A1 notation example, making the action and resource unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools sheets_write and sheets_list_tabs by focusing on reading cell data.

  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 this is the tool to use for reading Google Sheets data but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling names give context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on alternative selection.

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

• sheets_writeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description takes on the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that values beginning with '=' are stored as literal text, never evaluated as formulas, and that USER_ENTERED is intentionally unavailable to prevent formula injection. This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not cover overwrite behavior or authentication.

  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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either purpose or a critical behavioral constraint. The reference to 'value_input_option.py' is slightly opaque, but it does not undermine conciseness or clarity.

  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?

  For a 3-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the key input caveat, and the security reasoning. It does not discuss overwriting semantics or explicitly compare with siblings, but the low complexity and available schema/output schema keep the description reasonably complete.

  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?

  Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to 'range' by specifying A1 notation and to 'values' by explaining the literal-text rule for leading '='. However, 'spreadsheet_id' is left entirely implicit, and the 2D array shape of 'values' is only inferable from the schema, making the compensation partial.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write values to a Google Sheet range (A1 notation).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools sheets_read and sheets_list_tabs, which are read/list operations.

  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 clearly positions the tool as a write operation and emphasizes a deliberate constraint: there is 'deliberately no way to request USER_ENTERED.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over sheets_read or sheets_list_tabs, though the distinction is strongly implied.

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