Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• synlake_estimateB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns quick estimates and the cheapest option, which is consistent but does not elaborate on additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place efficiently.

  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 three parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter usage, optionality of 'providers', or the return format beyond 'cheapest option and savings percentage', leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

  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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. There is no mention of 'intent', 'requirements', or 'providers', leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema structure.

  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 title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: estimating infrastructure costs across AWS, GCP, and Azure. It is specific about returning the cheapest option and savings percentage, and distinguishes well from sibling tools like synlake_providers or synlake_usage.

  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 implies usage for cost estimation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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

• synlake_queryA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns 'Terraform code and CLI commands ready to execute,' which clarifies the output. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It contains no extraneous information, though it is slightly dense. Could be improved by breaking into two sentences, but currently concise and informative.

  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 (nested parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to structure requirements/constraints, what the return format looks like (e.g., multiple options, pricing details), or any pagination/limits. Additional detail is needed for the agent to use the tool effectively.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage and includes nested objects (requirements, constraints, output). The description only mentions 'compute, storage, database, networking' (mapping to intent) and vaguely 'Terraform code' (output). It fails to explain the meaning of requirements fields like vcpus, memory_gb, or constraints like max_monthly_budget, which are critical for correct usage.

  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: it queries cloud infrastructure needs and returns the best option across providers with Terraform code and CLI commands. It distinguishes from sibling tools like synlake_estimate (cost estimation) and synlake_providers (list providers) by focusing on querying specific infrastructure requirements.

  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 implies usage for obtaining infrastructure options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

• synlake_validateA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark as read-only and non-destructive. Description adds specific behavioral details (budget, security checks, warnings), aligning with annotations.

  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?

  Single sentence with front-loaded purpose. Every word adds value; no 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?

  No output schema, but mentions return type ('warnings'). Lacks details on error handling, full validation scope, or exact output format. Adequate but not thorough.

  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 coverage is 0%. Description only hints at 'budget limits' (maps to agent_budget_limit) and 'Terraform or CLI' (maps to execution_type), but does not explain the code parameter or provide full parameter 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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Validate', the resource 'execution kit', and specific actions ('checks budget limits, security configuration, and returns warnings'). Differentiates from sibling tools like synlake_estimate which focuses on estimation.

  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?

  Provides clear context 'before deploying' indicating appropriate timing. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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

• synlake_providersA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about return content (services, regions, last pricing update), which is valuable beyond annotations.

  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?

  Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded verb 'Get'. No extraneous information.

  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?

  Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully describes what the tool returns and its purpose. Complete for a listing tool.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add param info; it is sufficient.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'Get the list of supported cloud providers' with specific providers (AWS, GCP, Azure) and details (services, regions, last pricing update). It distinguishes from siblings which are different operations (estimate, query, usage, validate).

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but purpose is clear and tool is simple. Implicit usage context: use when you need provider list and details.

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

• synlake_usageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific context about what is checked (rate limits, budget), providing value beyond the annotations.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  With no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and what information it retrieves.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, as it simply checks current usage.

  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 checks API usage, rate limits, infrastructure, and budget. It uses a specific verb 'check' and distinguishes from sibling tools like synlake_estimate or synlake_query.

  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 implies usage for checking current status but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.

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