Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_labelA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read/write nature (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds 'external write' context beyond annotations, but lacks details on error handling, duplicate behavior, or 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no unnecessary words. 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?

  Covers essential context (Gmail, exact name, external write, scope). Output schema handles return values. Missing error conditions or duplicate handling, but acceptable for a simple creation tool.

  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 description coverage is 33% (only 'name' described). Description adds no additional meaning for 'label_list_visibility' or 'message_list_visibility' parameters, failing to compensate for low coverage.

  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 verb (create), resource (Gmail user label), and scope (exact name, external write, does not apply to messages). Clearly distinguishes from siblings (delete_label, update_label, send_email).

  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 what the tool does and does not do (does not apply label to messages). Provides clear context for when to use, but no explicit when-not-to or alternatives mentioned.

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

• update_labelA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds context that message membership is unaffected, which is a key behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions detected.

  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 pack the essential information: the action, the resource (exact current name), the scoped changes (rename/visibility), and a clear exclusion. No redundancy or fluff.

  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 simple update tool, the description covers the main functionality and exclusions. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are handled. Could mention authentication or label scope, but overall complete enough to use correctly.

  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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description provides high-level context (e.g., 'rename the label or change its Gmail visibility settings') that maps to parameters like new_name and visibility enums. It partially compensates for the low coverage but does not detail each parameter's exact 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?

  The description clearly states 'Update one Gmail user label' with the specific action of renaming or changing visibility. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_label and delete_label by specifying what it does not do (modify message membership).

  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 explains what the tool does and explicitly states what it does not modify, guiding the agent on appropriate use. However, it lacks direct comparison to siblings (e.g., when to use update vs create/delete) and does not mention prerequisites like authentication.

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

• send_emailA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: need for explicit approval, exact content disclosure, unknown outcome on lost response, and prohibition on automatic retries. This aligns with openWorldHint=true and adds significant value.

  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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding critical usage notes. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

  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 complexity (5 required params, mutation with side effects), the description covers the function, approval requirement, and retry prohibition. An output schema exists, so lack of return value description is acceptable.

  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 does not add semantic details beyond referencing the fields, as the schema already provides constraints. No contradiction.

  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 sends one plain-text email from the connected Gmail account, distinguishing it from sibling label management tools. The verb 'send' and resource 'email' are specific.

  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 important usage constraints: host must obtain fresh approval and never auto-retry on lost response. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the context is sufficient given sibling tools are unrelated.

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

• delete_labelA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds crucial details: 'permanently delete', 'removes from every affected message and thread', and the requirement for explicit consequence-aware approval, going well 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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and method; second explains consequences and approval requirement. Perfectly front-loaded.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, destructive, with output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter method, and approval requirement. No gaps noted.

  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 the parameter description already states 'Exact Gmail user-label name to delete.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 explicitly states 'permanently delete one Gmail user label resolved by exact name', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from siblings (create_label, update_label, send_email) by focusing on deletion.

  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 warns about the destructive nature ('removes from every affected message and thread') and instructs to obtain explicit approval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not scenarios.

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