Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_emailB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Send an email' and mentions credential sources. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., sending is destructive), error behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is insufficient for an agent to understand runtime implications.

  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 very concise at one sentence (16 words) and front-loads the main purpose. It earns its place without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral info without harming conciseness, so it is not a perfect 5.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., success/error response), how to obtain template IDs, whether it works offline, and how it relates to siblings (e.g., using get_email_history to check sent emails). It needs much more context for an agent to use it reliably.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that credentials can be passed as parameters or from env vars, which is already implied in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Overrides EMAILJS_SERVICE_ID env var'). No additional meaning is provided; it does not clarify how template_params map to variables or when to use overrides.

  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's function: 'Send an email using an EmailJS template.' It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('email using EmailJS template'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_email_history (reading) and validate_config (validating).

  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 provides a minor usage hint about credentials (can be from env vars or parameters) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., valid template ID) or when not to use it. No comparison to siblings is made.

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

• get_email_historyA
  3.6/5.0
  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 mentions authentication requirements but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, idempotency, or error handling for missing credentials.

  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 core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 retrieval tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and authentication. It lacks details on response format, but the tool is relatively straightforward.

  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 additional semantic meaning beyond reinforcing authentication requirements, which is baseline behavior.

  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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'history of emails sent via EmailJS'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_email' and 'validate_config' by specifying the action and context.

  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 email history is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings or provide exclusions. The authentication requirement is mentioned, but no guidance on when not to use.

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

• validate_configA
  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 full burden. It explicitly warns that this tool performs a real send, consumes quota, and may deliver an email, which is critical behavioral information. However, it lacks details about return format or validation criteria beyond a 'clear message'.

  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-loading the purpose and then providing essential behavioral warning. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

  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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and notes important side effects. It could mention what a successful validation returns, but the promise of a 'clear message' is sufficient for most agents.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context but does not elaborate on individual parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

  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's purpose: 'Validate EmailJS credentials and template ID.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_email' and 'get_email_history'.

  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 provides context about the tool's side effects (real send, quota consumption) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No direct comparison to siblings is given.

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