Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch-emailsC
  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 mentions filtering capabilities and default values, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output contains. For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key parameters. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and doesn't contain unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from parameter details.

  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 an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema description coverage, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, for a tool with 4 parameters including a nested object and no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about how the filtering works, what happens when no emails match criteria, and typical usage patterns.

  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 minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the default for 'mailbox' and format for 'dateRange', but these are already covered in the schema. The description's mention of filtering logic is somewhat helpful but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

  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 ('emails from the user's inbox'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from the sibling 'send-email' by being a read operation versus a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond that basic read/write distinction.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

• send-emailB
  3.1/5.0
  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 'Send Email' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, delivery confirmation, error handling, or whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation.

  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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core action and parameters with zero wasted words. Every element in the description serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

  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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with a complete input schema and output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. However, for an email sending operation that likely has important behavioral considerations (delivery, errors, authentication), the description should provide more context about what happens when the tool is invoked.

  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 mentions the three parameters (subject, destination, body) but adds no semantic meaning beyond what's already fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The schema already provides format validation, length constraints, and clear descriptions for each parameter.

  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 ('Send') and resource ('Email') along with the key parameters (subject, destination, body). It's specific about what the tool does but doesn't distinguish it from its sibling 'fetch-emails' beyond the obvious action difference.

  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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'fetch-emails' or provide any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations for sending emails.

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