Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_errorsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects (e.g., read-only nature), or any constraints like rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but fails to address these aspects.

  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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the primary function. While it could be slightly more informative, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded.

  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?

  The description fails to explain the output format or any post-processing expectations, despite the presence of an output schema. It also does not mention how results are ordered or paginated. Given the parameter count of 4 and the need for search result details, the description is incomplete.

  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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 and resource ('Search for errors in Elasticsearch logs'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_error_patterns' or 'analyze_error_trend', which could lead to confusion about which tool to use for specific error-related tasks.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over siblings such as 'analyze_error_trend' or 'get_error_context', leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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

• analyze_error_trendA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions building a time-series histogram but omits crucial details such as permissions needed, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant wording.

  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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the purpose and output type, though it could briefly mention how results are interpreted.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds 'histogram' context, but does not elaborate on output semantics beyond what the schema 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 it analyzes error rate trends over time for a service, using a verb and specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_errors or get_error_context.

  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 trend analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

• compare_errorsA
  4/5.0
  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 states the tool compares errors but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. It implies analysis but lacks explicit behavioral details.

  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 consists of two efficient sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a usage hint. No unnecessary words.

  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 simple two-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate. It could mention its read-only nature given no annotations, but overall it is complete enough for agent selection.

  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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema (trace_id_1 and trace_id_2). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 'Compare' and the resource 'two errors', specifying the action exactly. It mentions finding similarities and differences, which differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_error_trend or get_error_context.

  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 a clear use case: 'judging whether two failures are related or share a root cause.' It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the sister tools context.

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

• get_error_contextA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what it retrieves. It does not disclose side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or that it is read-only, which is acceptable for a retrieval tool but lacks explicit behavioral constraints.

  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?

  Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded purpose and clear explanation of what is retrieved. Every sentence adds value.

  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 2 well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It could mention read-only nature or prerequisite that trace_id exists, but overall it is complete.

  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 adds context by explaining that trace_id is used to fetch error and related logs, aligning with include_related. However, it doesn't explicitly describe include_related beyond what the schema 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 it retrieves full context for an error using a trace ID, specifying it gets the error and related logs. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_errors or analyze_error_trend, which serve different purposes.

  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 when to use the tool (when you have a trace ID and need debugging context) but does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling names imply alternatives.

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

• get_error_patternsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions grouping by message and identifying common patterns, which is a basic behavioral overview. Missing details like read-only hint, permission requirements, or performance implications.

  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?

  Two sentences, no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains the grouping logic and use case. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

  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 output schema exists to describe return values, description adequately covers purpose and usage context. Missing explicit mention of grouping criterion (message) but it's implied. Siblings provide enough differentiation.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that patterns are grouped by message and systemic issues are targeted, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Detect' and resource 'recurring error patterns' with method 'aggregating similar error messages'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_errors' (find specific errors) and 'analyze_error_trend' (trend analysis) by focusing on pattern detection.

  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?

  Explicitly states use case: 'useful for separating systemic issues from one-off errors'. This provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or compare directly with alternatives.

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

• health_checkA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the return structure (status, url, cluster_info) which provides some behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, and no annotations are provided to fill this gap.

  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 highly concise with two sentences. It starts with the main action and follows with a bullet-like list of return fields. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

  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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no annotations, and output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly states the return format, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

  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 tool has no parameters (input schema empty, coverage 100%). According to rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.

  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: 'Check Elasticsearch connection health.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on error analysis.

  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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for verifying connectivity, the description lacks context such as prerequisites or scenarios where it is particularly useful.

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