Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_expenseD
  1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

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

  Conciseness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  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?

  Tool has no description.

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

  Purpose1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Tool has no description.

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

• summarizeD
  1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

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

  Conciseness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  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?

  Tool has no description.

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

  Purpose1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Tool has no description.

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

• deleteC
  2.4/5.0
  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 states this is a deletion operation but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletions are permanent or reversible, if there are confirmation prompts, what permissions are required, or what happens when multiple criteria match multiple records. The description is insufficient for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words, but the second sentence is poorly formatted ('like' instead of 'e.g.' or 'such as') and reads as a continuation rather than proper structure. The information is front-loaded but could be more professionally presented.

  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?

  This is a destructive mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but has an output schema. The description fails to address critical context: deletion permanence, criteria logic, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. For a tool with this complexity and risk profile, the description is inadequate.

  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. It lists parameter names but doesn't explain their semantics: what format dates should use, whether 'amount' is exact match or range, how criteria combine (AND/OR), or what happens when no criteria are specified. The list adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

  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 'Delete expenses based on any column criteria' which provides a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('expenses'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update' which also modifies expenses. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update' or 'list_expenses'. The description mentions column criteria but doesn't explain prerequisites, constraints, or when this deletion is appropriate versus other operations.

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

• list_expensesC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only) and specifies date-range filtering, but doesn't mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('list all expenses') followed by the key constraint ('within an inclusive date range'). Every word serves a purpose.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'expense' object contains, how results are structured, whether there are limits on date ranges, or how to handle large result sets. For a list tool with two required parameters, more context is needed for effective 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% (parameters have only titles), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'inclusive date range' which implies the two parameters are date boundaries, but doesn't specify date format (ISO, timestamp, etc.), timezone handling, or whether dates are inclusive/exclusive. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what's inferable from parameter 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 'list' and resource 'expenses', specifying the scope as 'within an inclusive date range'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_expense' (create) and 'update' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'summarize' which might also involve expense data. The purpose is specific 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 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 'summarize' (which might provide aggregated data) or other siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• updateB
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'Only provided fields will be updated' (partial update behavior), it doesn't address important aspects like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, error conditions, or what happens when invalid data is provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 extremely concise - just two sentences that communicate the core functionality and a key behavioral aspect. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 6 parameters (only 1 documented via description), but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should do more to explain the mutation's behavior and parameter meanings.

  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 some value by explaining the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated'), which helps interpret the null-able parameters in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, it doesn't explain what 'cid', 'date', 'amount', 'category', 'subcategory', or 'note' represent or their expected formats.

  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 action ('Update') and resource ('an expense'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the 'delete' sibling tool or explain what distinguishes this update operation from other potential expense modifications.

  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 'add_expense' or 'delete'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for expense updates versus other operations.

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