Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• recent_requestsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already known; the description adds useful behavioral context about child counts and the distinction between error-status responses and exceptions. It does not contradict the annotations and adds enough context to set agent expectations.

  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 the core definition front-loaded and a practical filter example in the second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The definition is complete for a read-only, fully optional-filter list tool: it names the output shape (requests with child counts), provides a filtering use case, and the schema covers all five parameters. No output schema is present, but the description supplies the key return concept.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters like minStatus and uriContains are already documented; the description adds meaning by highlighting the minStatus: 400 failure-detection pattern and the child-count output. This goes beyond merely restating schema fields.

  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 identifies the resource ('incoming requests') and a defining attribute ('with child counts'), and its example filter signals a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from siblings like recent_exceptions and slow_queries by scope, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

  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?

  It gives a concrete, high-value usage example: using minStatus: 400 to find failures that returned an error status without throwing. This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer recent_exceptions, request_detail, or slow_queries instead.

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

• slow_queriesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: sorting by slowness, recency, and association with the request. The only minor gap is that 'recent' is not precisely defined, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

  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, front-loaded with the core behavior and a useful follow-up instruction. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

  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-only listing tool, the schema and annotations carry much of the burden, and the description covers sorting and request linkage. The slight ambiguity around the time window of 'recent' and the absence of an explicit output shape keep it from being fully 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and both limit and minMs are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, 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?

  States exactly what it returns: recent database queries sorted slowest first, with the request that ran them. This clearly distinguishes it from request-centric siblings like recent_requests and recent_exceptions, so an agent can identify the right tool.

  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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect slow database queries and then drill into the associated request via request_detail. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow is evident enough to guide selection.

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

• recent_exceptionsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the return items include linked request context, logs, queries, and outgoing calls, and results are ordered most-recent-first. This gives the agent useful expectations without contradicting the annotations.

  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, no filler. The first sentence conveys content and scope; the second gives a direct usage directive. Every word earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what is returned, the ordering, and the triggering use case. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes the response contents for an agent to call it correctly.

  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% and the single 'limit' parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, 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 states a specific resource ('the most recent exceptions') and adds substantial scope: each exception includes the request that produced it and that request's logs, queries, and outgoing calls. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recent_requests and request_detail.

  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?

  'Start here when something failed' provides explicit guidance for when to use this tool: failure triage. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the instruction strongly implies this is the entry point, making the usage context clear.

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

• request_detailA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only behavior; the description adds value by revealing that responses are not truncated and that all nested request artifacts are included. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only detail tool this is acceptable.

  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 short sentences front-load the core behavior and add a usage trigger with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter, read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, that nothing is truncated, and when to call it. The schema covers the id source, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

  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 documents the id parameter at 100% coverage, including valid sources for the value. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 states exactly what the tool returns ('One request in full') and enumerates the contents (headers, payload, response body, logs, queries, exceptions, outgoing calls), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/aggregation tools. 'Nothing is truncated' further defines the scope.

  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?

  It gives an explicit trigger condition: use it after a list tool has narrowed the search to a single request. It does not name the alternative list tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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

• statsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: counts reflect only retained entries, and oldest entries are dropped once storage reaches maxEntries. This helps the agent interpret results correctly, though it doesn't detail return format or exact counts semantics.

  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?

  Three sentences with no filler: purpose, retention caveat, and usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a parameterless, read-only summary tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what counts are shown, how retention affects the data, and how to proceed using sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the simple nature of the result makes this acceptable.

  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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description effectively communicates that no inputs are needed and that the tool provides a snapshot of current telemetry counts.

  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 counts entries of each type currently retained by Telescope, using a specific verb ('How many entries... holding') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its aggregate summary nature rather than individual records.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly routes the agent: 'Read it first... then drill in with recent_exceptions or recent_requests.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the relevant alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's place in the workflow.

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