Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_accountsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a live IMAP login per enabled account and that it returns status, which informs the agent of a network-dependent operation and the type of result. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare 'list accounts' purpose.

  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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates scope, behavior, and outcome without unnecessary detail.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the live login behavior and that the returned status tells which mailboxes are queryable. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error/failure behavior, but the output schema likely covers that.

  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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics, and no additional parameter details are required.

  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 verb and resource: 'List configured mail accounts and whether each is reachable right now.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools (list_emails, search_emails, get_email) which focus on emails, not account status.

  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: it performs a live IMAP login to check reachability, so it should be used when the caller needs to know which mailboxes are queryable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

• list_emailsA
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: newest-first ordering, merging of all enabled accounts when account is omitted, per-account limit handling, unread_only filtering, and ISO date lower bound for 'since'. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it does not cover edge cases like pagination or error handling.

  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 highly concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list. Each line is informative and necessary, with no redundant filler. The front-loaded purpose makes the tool's intent immediately clear.

  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 list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: sorting order, account scoping, and filtering semantics. It also explains the merging behavior, which is crucial for understanding results. Minor gaps include a precise definition of 'recent' and explicit handling of pagination, but the output schema and limit parameter mitigate this.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: account key source and merging behavior, since as ISO date lower bound, unread_only as unseen messages, and limit as max rows per account when merging. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

  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: 'List recent emails, newest first.' The verb 'list' and resource 'emails' are specific, and the sorting order adds clarity. It is distinct from sibling tools like search_emails (which implies filtering/search) and get_email (which implies fetching a single email).

  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 provides usage context through parameter explanations, including referencing list_accounts for the account key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over search_emails or get_email, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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

• get_emailA
  4.4/5.0
  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 discloses a key side-effect: 'Reading does not mark the message as read' and notes 'plain-text body preferred'. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value (id provenance and no-read side-effect). No filler or repetition.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers critical aspects: what it fetches, how to obtain the ID, and the no-mark-read behavior. It does not detail return structure but is sufficient for correct invocation.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning to 'id' as an IMAP UID from list/search results. 'account' is mentioned but not elaborated, though this is intuitive given sibling list_accounts.

  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 'Fetch one full email' by account and message id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'full email' versus listing or searching.

  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 explicitly explains that the id comes from list_emails/search_emails rows, implying these tools should be used first to obtain the ID. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides clear contextual guidance.

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

• search_emailsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses search fields, IMAP OR matching, account-scoping behavior, ISO date bound, and per-account limit merging. It avoids describing return values that the output schema covers, but could add slightly more about result shape.

  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 and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a tight parameter-by-parameter breakdown. Every line adds necessary information without redundancy or 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 tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the search semantics, parameter behaviors, and important edge cases like account omission and per-account limit merging, making it complete for effective invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), but the description explains every parameter meaningfully: query is free text matched against specific fields, account can be omitted for all accounts, since is an optional ISO date lower bound, and limit is max rows per account when merging. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource 'emails' and explicitly scopes to 'from/subject/body text' with 'newest first' ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_emails or get_email, which imply different operations.

  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 practical usage guidance: query semantics, account omission to search all accounts, optional since lower bound, and limit behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context and phrasing clearly imply when to search versus list or fetch.

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