Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• authorizationC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions required parameters and gives appPath formatting examples, but does not disclose side effects, authorization state changes, or potential errors. Incomplete for a management tool.

  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?

  Description is relatively concise with examples and formatting. Every sentence adds information, though the contradiction with schema costs a point.

  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?

  No output schema, no annotations, and schema empty. Description tries to fill gaps but misses return behavior, prerequisites, and error conditions. Incomplete for a tool requiring multiple inputs.

  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?

  Description details parameters (action, appPath, interactive) that the input schema does not include (empty schema). Schema coverage is 100% empty, so description adds meaning but contradicts the schema, creating confusion.

  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?

  Description clearly states it manages app authorization for OID sync, listing specific actions. Distinguishes from sibling tools (allocate_id, analyze_workspace, config) by focusing on authorization.

  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?

  Lists required inputs (action, appPath) but provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools suggest authorization is a distinct operation, but no explicit usage context.

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

• analyze_workspaceA
  3.5/5.0
  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 tool 'analyzes' but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. It does not disclose any side effects or error conditions. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with potential file system access.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is somewhat verbose, including examples and default values inline. It is structured with a clear opening purpose, then REQUIRES, then optional parameters. However, it could be more concise by separating parameter details into a bulleted list. Still, it is functional.

  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?

  The description covers parameters comprehensively but does not explain return values (no output schema). It also does not reference sibling tools for context. Given the complexity (multiple parameters, workspace path required), it is complete for usage but incomplete for understanding outputs or potential interactions.

  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 is empty ('properties': {}), meaning the description provides all parameter semantics. It defines appPath, include, exclude, object_types, return_level, detect_collisions, and map_to_pools with types, defaults, and examples. This adds significant value beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema info.

  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 analyzes AL workspace for object ID consumption, collisions, and pool mapping. It specifies the resource (workspace) and actions (analyze, detect collisions, map pools). The sibling tools (allocate_id, authorization, config) suggest distinct purposes, and this description differentiates well.

  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 guidance for parameters, including a REQUIRED appPath with examples and defaults for optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., allocate_id) or when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

• allocate_idA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes three modes (preview, reserve, reclaim) and notes auto_track behavior for reserve mode. It does not mention destructive actions, rate limits, or authorization needs, but the description is detailed enough for an agent to understand core behavior.

  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-loading the main purpose and mode, followed by parameter details and examples. While somewhat long (200+ words), every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in path examples could be trimmed, but overall it is 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?

  The description explains the parameters and modes thoroughly, but it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., allocated IDs or status). Since there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness. The description is sufficient for invocation but lacks outcome details.

  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 properties, so the description provides all parameter meaning and constraints. It explains each required and optional parameter with types, default values, and examples. This adds essential semantics beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Preview, reserve, or reclaim object IDs for AL development.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools (analyze_workspace, authorization, config) which cover 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 provides clear required parameters (mode, appPath, object_type) and gives example paths. It implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when managing object IDs), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. However, given the distinct sibling tools, this is sufficient.

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

• configA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the three possible actions (read, write, validate) and outlines parameter constraints (e.g., appPath must be a workspace directory, not a file). It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but the disclosed behavior is adequate for a configuration tool.

  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 sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details parameters. It uses capitalization and examples for clarity. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, required/optional parameters, and constraints. It does not describe return values or error handling, but for a config tool with clear actions, this is reasonably complete. Slightly more detail on outputs would improve it.

  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 is empty, so the description provides all parameter documentation. It enumerates parameters (action, appPath, keys, patch, merge, schema_version) with types, constraints, and examples. This fully compensates for the missing schema and adds significant meaning.

  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 purpose: 'Read, write, and validate .objidconfig configuration files.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. The sibling tools (allocate_id, analyze_workspace, authorization) deal with unrelated tasks, so this tool is well-differentiated.

  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 explicitly lists required parameters (action, appPath) with examples and constraints, and optional parameters with restrictions (read-only/write-only). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of .objidconfig files is unique enough to imply usage. No exclusions are mentioned.

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