Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create-environmentC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'environment' represents in Infisical's context, what happens after creation, or potential side effects. The agent would need to guess about the operation's behavior and outcomes.

  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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation, but the description doesn't provide additional context like parameter relationships or usage examples.

  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 ('Create') and the resource ('a new environment in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create-project' or 'create-folder', which would require specifying what distinguishes an 'environment' from other Infisical entities.

  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 like 'create-project' or 'create-folder'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from parameter names alone.

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

• create-folderC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a folder but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a folder ID). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

  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 input schema fully documents all 5 parameters with their types and requirements. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but this is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 ('Create a new folder') and the target system ('in Infisical'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-project' or 'create-environment' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling 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 like 'create-project' or 'create-environment', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks any context for tool selection among the available creation tools.

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

• create-projectC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 without unnecessary elaboration. 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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

  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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new project in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create-environment' or 'create-folder' beyond specifying the resource type.

  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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create-environment' or 'invite-members-to-project'.

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

• create-secretC
  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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a secret already exists, or any side effects. For a mutation tool that creates sensitive data, this is a significant gap.

  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 without unnecessary 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 that creates sensitive secrets with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether secret values are encrypted at rest. The context demands more completeness.

  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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing extra 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new secret') and target resource ('in Infisical'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update-secret' or explain when to create versus update an existing secret.

  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 like 'update-secret' or 'get-secret'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

• delete-secretC
  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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety information.

  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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though this conciseness comes at the expense of missing contextual 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how to verify deletion succeeded. Given the complexity and risk of secret management, more context is needed.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured fields. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

  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 ('Delete') and resource ('a secret in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update-secret' or explain what distinguishes deletion from updating in this context, which would be helpful for agent selection.

  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 like 'update-secret' or 'create-secret'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for deletion versus other operations, leaving the agent with insufficient decision-making information.

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

• get-secretC
  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 but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the secret isn't found, which is critical for a secret retrieval tool.

  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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 a secret retrieval tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or security implications, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

  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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or typical use cases, resulting in the baseline score.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a secret in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-secrets' or 'create-secret' beyond the basic action, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like 'list-secrets' for multiple secrets or 'create-secret' for new ones. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• invite-members-to-projectC
  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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention permission requirements, whether invitations are revocable, how members are notified, rate limits, or what happens if emails/usernames are invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, 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?

  For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, invitation IDs), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

  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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

  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 verb ('invite') and resource ('members to a project in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create-project' or 'create-environment' that might also involve project management operations.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create-project' or 'update-secret' in the project management workflow.

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

• list-secretsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states it's a list operation (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'list all' entails (e.g., completeness guarantees). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

  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 action ('List all secrets') and specifies scope. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose concisely.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters (though well-documented in schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure), error cases, or operational constraints, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex data in a security-sensitive 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying project/environment context, matching the baseline score for high schema coverage without extra param insights.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('secrets'), specifying scope ('in a given Infisical project and environment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-secret' (single secret) and 'create-secret' (write operation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-like tools (none exist in siblings).

  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 is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to 'get-secret' for single secrets, or indicate scenarios like bulk retrieval. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.

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

• update-secretC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update a secret' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the secret doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

  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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the update operation's behavior. For a tool that modifies sensitive data (secrets), this lack of completeness is problematic.

  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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a secret in Infisical'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create-secret' or 'delete-secret' in terms of when to use update versus create/delete operations, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like 'create-secret' or 'delete-secret'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing secret to update, or context about when updating is appropriate versus creating a new secret.

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