Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_polices_of_account_by_filter_toolC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states 'Fetches' without disclosing that it supports filtering, pagination, or that it's a read operation. Fails to add behavioral context beyond the basic action.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise but overly simplistic for a tool with 9 parameters. Lacks structure; the 'by_filter' name is not reflected in the description.

  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 (9 parameters, filtering, pagination), the description is too brief. It does not mention that results can be filtered, paginated, or that an extended parameter controls detail level. Output schema exists but return behavior is not summarized.

  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 covers 78% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter details beyond the generic 'of a given account'. Does not improve understanding of the filter parameters.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'Fetches all policies of a given account', identifying the action and resource. However, it omits the 'by_filter' aspect implied in the tool name, which could mislead about filtering capability.

  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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_rules_of_account_tool. No mentions of prerequisites or contexts.

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

• get_rules_of_account_toolC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose and rule types, omitting details on read-only nature, pagination, filtering behavior, auth requirements, or potential 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?

  Two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the action and scope. No fluff, though could be slightly more structured.

  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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks mention of pagination and filtering capabilities, which are important for correct usage. Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, primarily listing rule types which overlap with the 'categories' parameter description. Baseline score applied.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool fetches custom rules details for sites under an account and lists the supported rule types. It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with domains, policies, or site details. However, it could be more specific about what 'custom rules details' includes.

  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?

  Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. No exclusions or context-specific usage hints are given.

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

• get_domains_by_filters_toolA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses the read operation and empty result meaning, but omits pagination behavior (page_num/page_size undocumented) and safety profile (idempotency, permissions). Acceptable but could improve.

  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 reasonably concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, single domain guidance, filter selection, empty results interpretation, and terminology. Could trim slightly but effectively 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?

  For a fetch tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, filter choice, and edge cases. Missing pagination details, but overall adequate given complexity and schema coverage.

  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 67%, with account_id, domain_ids, site_ids, names described. The description reinforces effective filter choice. However, page_num and page_size lack description both in schema and description, so no added value for those.

  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 it fetches domains for a site under an account, with strong verb 'Fetches' and specific resource. However, it mentions 'specific site' but allows multiple site_ids, causing slight ambiguity. No sibling differentiation needed as tools are for different resources.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use filter parameters (domain ID vs name for single domain) and interprets empty results (no existence/no access) advising against client-side filtering. Does not mention alternatives but siblings are unrelated.

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

• get_sites_details_of_a_given_account_toolA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains empty list meaning and advises against fetching all sites. However, it omits details on pagination (page_num, page_size), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error cases, leaving gaps in understanding.

  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 short and front-loaded with purpose, but the phrase 'To get a single site details provide the site Id or the site name' is slightly wordy. Overall, no excessive information.

  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 the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential filtering guidance and result interpretation. However, it lacks explanation of pagination parameters and does not address error handling or access prerequisites, leaving the agent slightly underinformed.

  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 description adds value beyond the input schema by advising to use site ID or name for single details and warning against pulling all data. With 67% schema coverage, it compensates for partially documented parameters (page_num, page_size lack descriptions) but could elaborate more on sub_account_ids.

  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 tool fetches a list of sites for a given account, and explains how to get single site details via ID or name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are about domains, policies, and rules, so clarity is slightly diminished.

  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 specific guidance on using filters effectively (e.g., use site ID if available) and interprets empty results. It mentions a sibling tool for domains but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives for filtering.

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