Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_relationsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, permissions, output format). It only states the basic purpose.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices valuable information that could clarify parameter usage and behavior. More detail would improve it.

  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 low schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain the output or how to use the model parameter properly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The single parameter 'model' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify what 'model' refers to (name, ID, etc.). No added meaning beyond the parameter name.

  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 returns both outbound and inbound relations for a model, distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_model or list_models.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but without any comparison or context.

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

• list_modelsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions 'Flat list' and an optional filter but provides no details on default behavior (e.g., when app is empty), pagination, ordering, or performance implications.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and filter option.

  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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic idea but lacks context about what an 'app.Model' is, the structure of the list, or any constraints. The output schema exists, partially compensating, but for a listing tool more context is desirable.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'app' is an optional filter, which is helpful, but does not explain expected format or behavior when omitted. Overall minimal added value.

  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 'Flat list of app.Model' clearly indicates the tool returns a list of models, distinguishing it from siblings like 'describe_model' (single model) and 'list_apps' (apps). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' or 'List'.

  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 vs alternatives like 'describe_model' or 'find_relations'. The description only implies basic usage with an optional filter.

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

• er_diagramB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It hints at output (Mermaid diagram) but does not specify if it is read-only, permissions needed, or any side effects. 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  Single sentence, very concise. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this is acceptable, though it could include more detail.

  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 zero parameters and existence of output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it doesn't clarify whether the diagram covers all models or any filtering, nor the exact output format.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description need not add parameter info, and baseline for 0 params is 4.

  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 emits a Mermaid erDiagram for the whole workspace, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like describe_model (single model) or find_relations (specific relations).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_model or find_relations. The description only states what it does, not the context or trade-offs.

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

• describe_modelA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the content included (fields, relations, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, but safety profile and side effects are unaddressed.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Full JSON detail for one model') and lists all relevant components. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

  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?

  The description names the types of information returned (fields, relations, Meta, base classes, file path), which is useful given the output schema exists. However, it fails to explain how to specify the model parameter (format) and does not address any prerequisites or constraints, leaving gaps for a simple tool with one parameter.

  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 single parameter 'model' (string) has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., app_label.ModelName) beyond stating it identifies a model. The description fails to add meaning for the parameter, which is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.

  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 returns 'Full JSON detail for one model' and lists specific components (fields, relations, Meta, base classes, file path). It distinguishes from siblings like 'er_diagram' and 'list_models' by focusing on a single model's detailed content.

  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 full details of a single model but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings (e.g., use find_relations for relations only, list_models for overview). No exclusions or context signals are provided.

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

• list_appsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior ('list') and completeness ('every'), but doesn't disclose performance implications or permission requirements.

  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?

  Single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, immediately conveying 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 parameter-less tool with output schema, description sufficiently covers what the tool does. Could optionally mention output format but schema handles it.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying output includes model counts, which is beyond the schema's emptiness. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

  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?

  Description clearly states action ('list'), resource ('every Django app'), and distinctive output ('with model counts'). Differentiates from sibling tools like list_models which focus on models within apps.

  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 on when to use or alternatives. However, the tool's simplicity (no parameters) implies straightforward usage. Lacks suggestions for when not to use or comparison with list_models.

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