Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_logsC
  2.4/5.0
  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 analyzing 'patterns and statistics' but doesn't specify what kind of patterns (e.g., error trends, performance metrics) or statistics (e.g., counts, averages) are returned, nor does it address permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'search_events'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's scope, output format, or how it differs from related tools, making it inadequate for confident agent use.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'time period' which loosely maps to 'timeRange', but doesn't explain 'query' (SEQ query filter) or 'groupBy' (property to group results by). The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names, leaving semantics largely undocumented.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'analyze log patterns and statistics over a time period', which provides a clear verb ('analyze') and resource ('logs'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific analysis is performed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'search_events' or 'list_signals', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_events' or 'list_signals'. It mentions a 'time period' but doesn't specify scenarios where pattern/statistical analysis is preferred over other log-related operations, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

• search_eventsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'powerful filtering' without detailing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'search' entails operationally. It fails to disclose critical aspects for a search tool with 5 parameters.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('search for events') without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to effectively invoke the tool without guesswork.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (e.g., query syntax, date formats, level options), leaving all 5 parameters semantically unclear beyond their names.

  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 ('search') and resource ('events in SEQ logs'), specifying the domain. It mentions 'powerful filtering' which hints at capabilities but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_logs' or 'get_event', keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_logs' or 'get_event' is provided. The description implies general search functionality but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

• get_eventC
  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 states the tool retrieves detailed information but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses log data.

  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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output details, or parameter nuances, which are essential for a tool that interacts with log events. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective use.

  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 retrieving a 'specific log event' by ID, which aligns with the single 'eventId' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details, and the description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the basic mapping, such as ID format or constraints.

  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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific log event'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'analyze_logs', 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 like 'search_events' or 'list_signals'. It implies usage for retrieving a single event by ID but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

• check_healthB
  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. It states the tool checks health status but doesn't add context such as what 'health' entails (e.g., uptime, resource usage, error rates), whether it requires authentication, or if it has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand what the tool does.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on what the health check returns (e.g., status codes, metrics) or how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete for optimal agent usage in a broader context.

  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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it compensates well by focusing on the tool's purpose, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

  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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of the SEQ server'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_logs' or 'get_event', which might also provide health-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'analyze_logs' or 'list_signals', which could potentially offer health insights. It implies usage for checking server health but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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

• list_signalsB
  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. It states the action ('List all configured signals') but doesn't describe traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'configured signals' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a system's saved searches.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of listing saved searches in a system like SEQ, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full scope, such as the format of returned signals or any system-specific constraints.

  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 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description implies no parameters are needed by stating 'List all configured signals', which aligns with the schema. This provides adequate semantic context, though it doesn't add extra details beyond the schema's emptiness.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all configured signals (saved searches) in SEQ'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event', which might also retrieve signal-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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