Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_dataC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get data' which implies a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'data' is returned, how it's structured, or any behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool with siblings indicating a CRUD-like API, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  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 no parameter-specific information beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id'. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

  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 the action ('Get data') and target ('from the Ucode Items API'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of data is retrieved or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_data' or 'update_data', which would require more specificity about the operation's scope.

  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. With siblings like 'delete_data', 'post_data', and 'update_data', the description lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• post_dataC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Post data' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

  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 waste—it directly states the tool's action and target without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a write operation tool. It doesn't explain what happens after posting (e.g., success response, error cases), nor does it address behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits. For a tool with one parameter but no structured safety info, more context is needed.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 the action ('Post data') and target ('Ucode Items API'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of data is posted or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_data', making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

  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 'update_data' or 'delete_data'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This lack of explicit direction reduces its effectiveness.

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

• update_dataC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update data,' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

  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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.

  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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are critical for an agent to operate effectively. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is insufficient.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

  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 the action ('Update') and target ('data on the Ucode Items API'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of data or entity is being updated, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_data' (create) or 'delete_data' (remove). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

  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 like 'post_data' for creation or 'delete_data' for removal. The description implies it's for updates but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing an existing entity ID, or contextual constraints. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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

• delete_dataC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation steps, or what happens to related data. This is inadequate for a destructive tool 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'data' means in this context, what the deletion consequences are, what gets returned (if anything), or how this differs from other data manipulation operations. The minimal description leaves critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Delete') and target resource ('data from the Ucode Items API'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_data' or 'post_data' beyond the different action verb.

  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_data' or 'get_data'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for deletion versus other operations.

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