Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• set_personal_infoA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description sufficiently discloses behavioral traits: it's a write operation, requires user confirmation, explains the side effects of omitting optional parameters (keeps existing values) and how to clear tags (pass []), and includes a warning against putting secrets in the description or tags. An example further clarifies usage.

  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 concise, starting with the core purpose and then adding necessary detail. It uses clear language and provides an example. Minor redundancy in warning about secrets ('non-secret' and 'never put secrets') but overall well-structured and efficient.

  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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the context signals, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameter behavior, and usage guidelines. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains that field and value are required, describes the optional description and tags, clarifies their behavior when omitted (keeps existing) or cleared ([]), and warns about secrets. The example concretely illustrates parameter order and values.

  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 explicitly states the tool adds or updates a personal-info field. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_personal_info, get_personal_info, list_tags, and search_personal_info, which handle deletion, retrieval, listing, and searching respectively.

  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 highlights that this is a write operation requiring user confirmation ('WRITE — confirm with the user first'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of siblings implies read-only alternatives. The guidance for confirming with the user is clear and actionable.

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

• delete_personal_infoA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses the write/destructive nature ('WRITE') and the need for user confirmation. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does so effectively.

  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?

  Extremely concise: one sentence and a warning. The critical usage note is front-loaded, making it immediately actionable.

  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 delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and behavioral guidance well. However, missing parameter explanation reduces completeness.

  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 'field' is not described in either the schema (0% coverage) or the description. The agent has no guidance on valid values or format, which is a significant gap for a required parameter.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Delete a personal-info field', clearly identifying the action (delete) and the resource (personal-info field). Differentiates from siblings like get, list, search, and set.

  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?

  Includes 'WRITE — confirm with the user first', providing explicit guidance that it is a mutating operation and requires user confirmation, which helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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

• search_personal_infoA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: searches over names/descriptions/tags, returns capped 'field — description' lines, never returns values, results ordered by relevance, and internal field name usage. It also provides user-facing instructions.

  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 well-structured, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is slightly lengthy but clear. Could be trimmed slightly without loss.

  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?

  Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return format. It covers search scope, non-return of values, sibling tool usage, and user-facing behavior. Complete for a search tool.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining 'query' as a keyword search and 'limit' as a cap (default 20). It adds context about search scope but doesn't specify exact query syntax. Given two simple parameters, this is sufficient.

  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 it searches fields by keyword over names, descriptions, and tags, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_personal_info (which retrieves a single field) and set_personal_info. It sets clear expectations that it does not return values.

  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 identifies this as the primary discovery tool and instructs calling get_personal_info after. It advises not to volunteer other fields. While it lacks an explicit 'when not to use', the context with siblings makes usage clear.

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

• get_personal_infoA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the intentional lack of a 'fetch everything' mode and the privacy benefit of reading only one field. Could mention that it is a read operation with no side effects, but overall sufficient.

  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 concise, well-structured, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the input and usage intent adequately.

  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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning by giving examples ('email', 'home_address') and specifying that the field name must be exact. This compensates for the bare schema.

  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 it returns one stored personal-info value by exact field name. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting the absence of a 'fetch everything' mode and mentioning alternative tools for discovery.

  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?

  Explicitly says to use search_personal_info or list_tags to discover the field first, and to use this tool instead of asking the user to type personal details. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• list_tagsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: no values returned, output bounded by tag count. Missing explicit statement of read-only nature, but implied by 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  Given 0 params and presence of output schema, the description is complete: explains output structure (counts, no values, bounded), usage context, and ties to sibling tool. No gaps.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the description adds no parameter details, but baseline is 4. No need for additional semantics.

  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 lists tags/categories with counts of fields, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_personal_info by focusing on tags rather than personal info fields.

  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?

  Explicitly advises when to use (orienting in large store) and provides a workflow: pick a tag then call search_personal_info. Also clarifies what is not returned (no values, bounded output).

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