Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_soql_helpA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (Dictionary) and content (syntax guide, examples, best practices) and provides a reference. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a help tool makes side effects unlikely.

  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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes return info and a reference link—all in three sentences 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?

  For a simple help tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description provides purpose, return details, and a reference. It is complete enough, though it could benefit from an explicit 'read-only' note.

  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 zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter details, which 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 clearly states the tool provides comprehensive help documentation for SOQL, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource (SOQL help documentation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_soql_query and describe_object.

  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 implies usage (when you need SOQL help) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct exclusions or alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• list_objectsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and describes the return shape, but does not disclose potential large result sets, permission needs, or other behavioral traits. It is not misleading, so it avoids a lower score.

  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 and front-loaded: a single action sentence followed by a brief return format summary. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and return format. It could be enhanced with usage context (e.g., referencing sibling tools), but it is complete enough for basic operation.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-related information because there are no parameters to explain, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

  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 opens with 'List all available Salesforce objects,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_object (which describes a specific object) and execute_soql_query (which runs queries).

  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 implies usage for enumerating all objects but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or contrasts with alternatives. It does not mention that describe_object is for specific object details.

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

• describe_objectA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the return type (dictionary of fields) and that it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions, API limits, or side effects. For a simple describe tool, this is adequate but not rich.

  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 sections (Args, Returns) after a one-line summary. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

  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?

  Simple tool with one parameter and an output schema. Description covers purpose, parameter, and return format, which is complete for this scope.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema provides no description for object_name (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining it's the API name and providing examples ('Account', 'Contact').

  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?

  States 'Get all fields for a specific Salesforce object' – a specific verb ('get'), resource ('fields'), and scope ('specific Salesforce object'). Clearly distinct from siblings like list_objects or execute_soql_query.

  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?

  Implied usage: when you need field definitions for an object. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is straightforward.

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

• execute_soql_queryA
  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 clearly describes the return format (dictionary with query, rows, row_count, columns) and important SOQL rules (no SELECT *, aggregate queries can't use LIMIT), which are critical behavioral constraints. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only semantics, but the nature of a SOQL query execution makes this reasonably inferable.

  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 longer than strictly necessary but is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Important, Reference, Rules). Every section adds meaningful information, though the content could be tightened slightly without losing 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?

  Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers essential aspects: return structure, critical rules, and a reference link. It also leverages the output schema for return details. It lacks explicit error-handling or permission requirements, but for a query execution tool, this is largely sufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema only defines 'query' as a string with no description, leaving the description to fully compensate. The description explains the parameter with a concrete example ('SELECT Id, Name FROM Account LIMIT 10') and adds crucial constraints on valid query construction, thereby providing complete parameter semantics.

  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 function: 'Execute a SOQL query against Salesforce.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like list_objects, describe_object, and get_soql_help, which serve different purposes.

  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 explicitly instructs users to consult get_soql_help() before constructing queries, which provides valuable context on when to use this tool versus learning/helper tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for metadata exploration), leaving some ambiguity.

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