Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• al_packagesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. Mentions auto-discovery but does not describe side effects of 'load' (e.g., changing state), implications of 'forceReload', or whether 'list' and 'stats' are safe operations.

  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?

  Short and to the point, no redundant sentences. Could be slightly more structured but efficient overall.

  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?

  With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover return values and error conditions. It does not describe what each action returns or what errors might occur, leaving the agent guessing.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context about auto-discovery but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

  Clearly states verb (package management) and resource (.app packages) with three specific actions: load, list, stats. Differentiates from sibling tools which are about searching objects and references.

  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?

  Provides context about auto-discovery but lacks explicit guidance on when to use each action or when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings are different enough that confusion is unlikely.

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

• al_find_referencesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool tracks various references but omits details like read-only nature, permissions, performance implications, or output format. The behavioral information is present but incomplete.

  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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise with no extraneous information.

  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 output schema and the tool's complexity (5 parameters with enums), the description does not cover expected return format, pagination, or error scenarios. It is insufficient for a complete understanding.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The high-level description complements the schema but doesn't offer new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'object/field references'. It specifies the scope 'in YOUR WORKSPACE' and lists what it tracks (extensions, variables, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like al_get_object_definition.

  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 indicates workspace scope but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like al_search_objects. No exclusions or conditions for usage are mentioned.

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

• al_get_object_definitionB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving compiled code structure but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

  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?

  Three sentences with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by method and usage tips. No filler, but could be slightly more detailed without major bloat.

  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?

  With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is terse. It covers key usage tips but lacks explanation of return format or how fields like includeFields affect output. Average completeness for complexity.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value with usage guidance like 'summaryMode for token efficiency' and 'limits for large objects', but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond 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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'AL object definition' with specific retrieval methods by ID or name. Distinguishes from sibling tools like al_find_references and al_get_object_summary by focusing on full definition retrieval.

  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?

  Provides tips for token efficiency with summaryMode and limits for large objects, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools like al_get_object_summary.

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

• al_search_object_membersA
  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 must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'search' which is obvious from the tool name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any destructive side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the obvious.

  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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No fluff, but could be slightly 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?

  With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination behavior, or default limits. It lacks completeness for a tool of this complexity, leaving the agent to infer behavior from parameter names alone.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond the schema, but does not omit anything. It does not illustrate usage or provide additional context for parameters like pattern or pagination.

  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 verb 'search' and the resource 'procedures, fields, controls, or dataitems within an object', distinguishing it from siblings like al_search_objects which searches objects themselves. It explicitly says 'Unified search for all object child elements' which reinforces the specific domain.

  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 indicates the scope ('in YOUR WORKSPACE') and the type of elements searched. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools provide context: al_search_objects for objects, al_find_references for references. The usage is implied but clear enough.

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

• al_get_object_summaryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses token efficiency and intelligent grouping, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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?

  Two concise sentences with a clear first sentence and a benefit-oriented second sentence. The emoji is unnecessary but not detrimental. Efficient and front-loaded.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It explains the tool's purpose and benefit but lacks details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple tool.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 verb 'get', the resource 'categorized overview of AL object', and the scope 'in YOUR WORKSPACE'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning token reduction vs full definition, differentiating it from al_get_object_definition.

  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 implies use when a token-efficient overview is needed, explicitly comparing to 'full definition'. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or clear alternatives.

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

• al_search_objectsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 implies read-only search/analysis but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, auth needs, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

  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?

  Three sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, efficiency tip, and alternative tool. No redundant or unnecessary information.

  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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage tips, and alternatives. It lacks explicit mention of output format or pagination details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces some parameters (summaryMode, limit, domain) but adds little new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 searches AL objects in the workspace and analyzes compiled code structure. It distinguishes itself by mentioning domain filtering and noting an alternative tool for complex objects.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is given: use summaryMode:true and limit for token efficiency, and prefer al_get_object_summary for complex objects. This directly helps the agent choose the right tool.

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