Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_objectsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List objects in a schema', omitting details like result format, permissions, or performance implications.

  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?

  A single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it over-simplifies and omits useful details, making it slightly less effective.

  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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how parameters relate (e.g., object_type default) or what the output represents.

  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 parameters are already described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 'List objects in a schema' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not mention the object_type parameter or differentiate from sibling tools like get_object_details or list_schemas.

  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 (execute_sql, get_object_details, list_schemas). The description lacks context for selection.

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

• get_object_detailsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show detailed information' with no mention of read-only nature, error behavior for missing objects, permissions, or side effects. The name implies a read operation, but that is insufficient.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though it avoids verbosity.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes or provide context about return value structure. It fails to do so, leaving agents uncertain about what to expect from the tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not explain parameter interactions or constraints.

  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 'Show detailed information about a database object' clearly states the verb 'Show' and resource 'database object', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_objects' (which likely lists object names) and 'list_schemas'. However, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, 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?

  No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like 'execute_sql' or 'list_objects', nor does it mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• list_schemasB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the action 'list all schemas' without mentioning limitations (e.g., pagination, performance, read-only nature) or return format. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

  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, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential action. However, it lacks context about the return value (e.g., list of schema names) and the specific database scope. It is minimally adequate but could be more informative.

  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% (one parameter described). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Connection name - see server instructions for available connections'. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra value is provided.

  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 'List all schemas in the database' clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'schemas'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'execute_sql' (execute queries) and 'list_objects' (list objects within a schema). However, it does not specify which database or connection context, though the input schema implies it.

  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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need to have a connection established) or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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

• execute_sqlB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'read-only', which is good, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, auth requirements, or the meaning of the default SQL value 'all'. This is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.

  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, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness. While efficient, a slightly longer description could improve clarity without being verbose.

  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 low complexity (2 params, no enums, no output schema), the description should still explain return format, error behavior, and the meaning of default 'all'. It fails to cover these essential aspects, making it incomplete.

  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 descriptions already cover both parameters (conn_name and sql) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not clarify the default 'all' behavior or connection reference.

  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 'Execute a read-only SQL query' clearly states the action (execute) and resource (SQL query), and explicitly indicates it's read-only, distinguishing it from write operations. Compared to siblings like get_object_details and list_objects, this tool is for arbitrary SQL queries, so the purpose is distinct.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_object_details or list_schemas. The read-only hint implies it's for queries only, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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