Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_confluenceC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for content and returns a dictionary with results, but it lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or how search results are ordered/filtered. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more integrated; they add necessary details without redundancy. A minor deduction for slight structural separation, but overall 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 the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and basic I/O but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter nuances. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but gaps in other areas make it only adequate.

  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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It defines 'query' as a 'Search query string to find content in Confluence,' which provides basic meaning. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high (4 for 0 params), but the description does not fully compensate by explaining query syntax, examples, or constraints (e.g., wildcards, field-specific searches), so it scores slightly below baseline.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Search for pages, blog posts, or attachments in Confluence.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and the resources ('pages, blog posts, or attachments'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_space_content' or 'read_page' (e.g., by noting this is a general search vs. space-specific listing or direct page reading), 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. It mentions what it searches for but does not specify contexts (e.g., 'use this for broad queries across all content types' vs. 'use list_space_content for content within a specific space') or exclusions. This lack of comparative information leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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

• read_pageB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it accesses public or private pages. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, missing key details for safe and effective use.

  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. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by dedicated sections for 'Args' and 'Returns,' each with brief, relevant details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The output information helps, but overall completeness is adequate with noticeable 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?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by specifying that 'page_id' is 'The Confluence page ID,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. However, it doesn't detail constraints like ID format or examples, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, this is above baseline but not fully comprehensive.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Fetch the full content of a specific page by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('page'), and scope ('by its ID'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_space_content' or 'search_confluence', which likely serve different purposes (listing vs. searching vs. fetching a specific page).

  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 sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'search_confluence' when the page ID is unknown or 'list_space_content' for browsing. There's also no information on prerequisites or constraints, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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

• list_space_contentA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('Dictionary containing list of pages with title and id'), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels could be slightly more integrated for optimal flow.

  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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, though it lacks behavioral details like pagination or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

  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 explains the 'space_key' parameter's purpose ('The Confluence space key') and provides an example ('e.g., 'TEAM', 'DOCS''), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a high score, though not a 5 due to lack of deeper semantic details.

  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 specific action ('List all pages') and resource ('within a specific Confluence workspace'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_page' (which reads a single page) and 'search_confluence' (which searches across spaces). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  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 by specifying the required 'space_key' parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_confluence'. It provides context (listing pages in a specific space) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparative use cases with siblings.

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