Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• validateA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the delegation to enforcement engines and the output structure including bundle_id, passed, and results with detailed sub-fields. This is good but could mention side effects or idempotency.

  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 concise: two sentences for purpose and one for input/output. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses minimal words without redundancy.

  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 3 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description provides the output shape but lacks details on the results array structure (e.g., what constitutes a violation, severity meanings) and behavioral context (e.g., synchronous vs async, error handling). Adequate but with gaps.

  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 0%, and the description adds meaning by naming and describing each parameter: artifact (object), scope (optional), version (optional). However, it does not elaborate on sub-properties or expected formats, leaving some ambiguity.

  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: 'Validate a candidate artifact against in-scope constraints by delegating to enforcement engines.' It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (artifact), and distinguishes from siblings (describe_scope, get_constraints) which have different actions.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or when not to use it. No context for decision-making between sibling tools is given.

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

• describe_scopeA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description indicates the tool is read-only (discovers, lists) and outputs a set of vocabulary items, which implies no side effects. Given no annotations, this is reasonably transparent. Missing details like permissions or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

  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 filler. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and benefit, and the second lists outputs and usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.

  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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose, outputs in detail, and usage guidance. The lack of output schema is compensated by listing output fields. Missing documentation of the version parameter slightly detracts from completeness for a simple tool.

  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?

  The description does not mention the sole parameter 'version' at all, even though schema coverage is 0%. For a single optional parameter, the description could have explained its purpose, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

  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 uses specific verbs 'discover' and 'lists' to state what the tool does, and it clearly enumerates the output fields (providers, resource_types, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings (get_constraints, validate) by positioning itself as a preliminary discovery step.

  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 advises to 'Call this first if unsure of valid scope values,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to get_constraints or validate or state when not to use it, leaving some room for improvement.

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

• get_constraintsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains input specifics (Terraform identifiers, repos as tags), optional version with default, output format, and error behavior (fails open).

  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?

  Single paragraph with good front-loading, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for input fields). Still concise and informative.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Despite no output schema, description states output format. Covers scope usage, defaults, error behavior, making it complete for agent decision-making.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully explains both parameters: scope (with details on its dimensions) and version (with default). Provides examples and rules for scope values.

  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 returns engineering constraints relevant to a scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_scope and validate by explaining its specific purpose.

  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 on when to call describe_scope first if unsure of valid values, and that omitting dimensions broadens match. Also explains error handling (fails open) so agent knows how to proceed.

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