Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• rdms_download_imageC
  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. It mentions downloading and optional analysis but fails to describe critical behaviors: where the image is saved (local file vs. memory), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'analysis' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external systems.

  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 that states the core functionality. It's appropriately front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be slightly more specific about the download destination to improve clarity without adding unnecessary length.

  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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image data, analysis results, file path), error conditions, or system dependencies. The lack of behavioral transparency and output information makes it incomplete for effective agent 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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'optionally analyze' which aligns with the analyze parameter but provides no extra context about analysis outcomes or filename usage.

  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 verb 'download' and resource 'image from RDMS system', specifying the core action. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on bug retrieval rather than image operations. However, it doesn't specify whether this downloads to local storage or returns data directly, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 mentions optional analysis but doesn't explain when analysis is beneficial or what alternatives exist for similar functions. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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

• rdms_get_my_bugsC
  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 retrieves bugs but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse while conveying the essential purpose.

  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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., bug details, list format), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed for effective 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with defaults and types. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('bugs assigned to current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rdms_get_my_market_bugs' which appears to serve a similar purpose for a different bug type, leaving room for improvement in 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 like 'rdms_get_my_market_bugs' or 'rdms_get_bug'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for usage, offering only a basic functional statement without operational context.

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

• rdms_get_my_market_bugsB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no bugs are found. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

  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?

  For a tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which could help the agent use it more effectively. Given the simplicity, it meets a baseline level of completeness but has clear 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('market bugs assigned to current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rdms_get_my_bugs' or 'rdms_get_market_bug', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 'rdms_get_my_bugs' or 'rdms_get_market_bug'. It implies usage for retrieving bugs assigned to the current user, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

• rdms_get_bugA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns bug information including image URLs but not image content, and has a clear workflow dependency (use rdms_download_image for image analysis). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the core behavior well for a read tool.

  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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and key limitation, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

  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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, its limitations, and how to handle those limitations. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but for a simple getter tool, this 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100% (bugId parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), but it doesn't need to since the schema already covers it adequately.

  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 with specific verbs ('Get bug details by ID') and resource ('bug'), distinguishing it from siblings by specifying it returns bug information with image URLs but not image content. It explicitly contrasts with rdms_download_image for image analysis needs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to get bug details with image URLs) and when not to use it (if you need to analyze image content), naming the alternative tool (rdms_download_image) and specifying the condition for using it (with returned image URLs).

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

• rdms_get_market_bugA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behaviors: it returns information including image URLs but not image content, and it requires image content analysis to be handled by another tool. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are common gaps for a read 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying limitation and explicit alternative usage. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits. However, it could benefit from mentioning the return structure (e.g., what fields are included beyond image URLs) to fully compensate for the lack of output schema, though the sibling tool reference mitigates this gap.

  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 parameter 'marketBugId' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides about the parameter, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema 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?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Get market bug details by ID with image extraction'), identifies the resource ('market bug'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it returns image URLs but not content, unlike rdms_download_image which handles content analysis. This precise verb+resource+scope combination effectively differentiates it from alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Get market bug details by ID with image extraction') and when not to use it ('If you need to analyze image content, use the rdms_download_image tool with the returned image URLs'), naming the alternative tool directly. This offers clear guidance on tool selection based on the need for image content analysis.

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