Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tablesB
  3.3/5.0
  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 disclosing behavior. It states the tool lists tables and views, but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, lack of side effects, or the return format. This is minimal behavioral information for a tool with no annotation support.

  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, focused sentence that leads with the verb and directly states the tool's action. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks explicit details about the return value (e.g., table names only, inclusion of schemas) and how the 'database' parameter affects results. While not incomplete, it does not fully cover the operation without schema/annotation support.

  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 already fully describes the single optional 'database' parameter (100% coverage), including its meaning and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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: to list all tables and views in the database. It uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_table (which describes a specific table) and query (which runs queries).

  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 usage guidance is given. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide hints about when it's appropriate (e.g., discovering available tables). The only context is the parameter description referencing list_databases, which is indirect.

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

• describe_tableA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List the columns and types'), which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe, nor does it mention behavior on errors or missing tables. For a simple describe tool, this is sufficient transparency.

  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 zero waste. It conveys purpose directly and efficiently.

  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?

  The tool is simple with only two parameters (one required), and the description adequately captures its core behavior. Without an output schema, the description could have detailed the return format, but stating 'columns and types' gives a reasonable hint. It is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

  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 'database' and 'tableName' fully described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'List the columns and types for a given table' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from siblings like list_tables (which lists table names) and query (which runs queries). It fully conveys the tool's purpose.

  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 context ('for a given table') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention that list_tables should be called first to obtain a table name. This is an implied, not explicit, usage guideline.

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

• list_databasesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context ('configured to connect to') but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or return format. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

  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 that communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the meaning.

  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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is close to complete. It clearly states what is returned (database aliases) and the context. It could potentially clarify the return type, but this is not essential for a list operation.

  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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but this is not necessary since the schema is empty and the operation is parameterless.

  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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('database aliases'). It also provides the scope ('configured to connect to'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list tables or run queries.

  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 the tool is used to see available database connections, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like list_tables. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and description.

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

• queryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full safety disclosure burden. It does disclose the essential behavior of being read-only, which is critical for an agent considering side effects. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., result size, timeout, error handling) or clarify whether multiple statements are allowed. The description is correct but not richly transparent.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb ('Run'), specifies the resource ('database'), and states the output ('rows'). Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

  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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, read-only behavior, and result format. It lacks mention of potential query limits or error behavior, which would be useful given no output schema and no annotations, but the overall context is sufficiently clear. The nearby sibling tools help orient the agent without needing explicit mention.

  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 coverage is 100% since both parameters (sql, database) are individually described with sufficient detail. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating that the query is a SELECT, which is already captured in the schema. The constraint 'read-only' is a behavioral qualifier rather than a parameter semantic. Baseline of 3 applies.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run a read-only SELECT query against the database.' It specifies the output format ('return the results as rows') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table by focusing on arbitrary SQL queries.

  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 implies the tool is for executing read-only SELECT statements and indicates it returns results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the 'read-only' qualifier clarifies a key usage constraint and the sibling list shows when other tools might be more appropriate. The schema's reference to list_databases for the database parameter adds some guidance.

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