Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_tableC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool describes table structure but doesn't reveal what that entails (e.g., column names, types, constraints), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if the table doesn't exist), or any permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with database metadata.

  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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 tool's complexity (interacting with database metadata), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'estructura' includes (e.g., schema details), potential outputs, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with these gaps, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'table_name' well-documented in the schema as 'Nombre de la tabla a describir'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 'Describe la estructura de una tabla' clearly states the tool's purpose: describing a table's structure. It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('tabla'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'execute_query' beyond the structural focus. The Spanish phrasing is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_tables' (which might list table names) or 'execute_query' (which might retrieve data), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for describing table structure versus other operations.

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

• execute_queryC
  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 'execute a SELECT query' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it mention potential risks (e.g., performance impact, data exposure), authentication requirements, or result limitations. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

  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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 database query execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (result sets, error formats), performance considerations, security constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. The description leaves critical contextual gaps for proper tool selection and use.

  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 'query' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it just restates that it's a SELECT query). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('execute') and resource ('SELECT query on Oracle database'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 'describe_table' or 'list_tables'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for executing SELECT queries versus using the sibling tools.

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

• list_tablesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists tables for the current user. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a 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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted content.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or output structure, which are important even for a simple tool with no annotations, making it inadequate for full context.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable given the baseline for zero parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for missing details.

  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 ('Lista todas' - lists all) and resource ('tablas disponibles' - available tables), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'execute_query', which prevents a score of 5.

  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 'describe_table' (for table details) or 'execute_query' (for querying data). It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, offering only basic functionality.

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