Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sample_dataB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'return sample rows,' implying a read operation, but reveals nothing about limits, randomness, or side effects. The parameter schema covers limit constraints, but the description adds no behavioral context.

  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 that is easy to parse and front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it omits useful context that could be added without becoming 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?

  The tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description lacks usage context and does not clarify how sampling works (e.g., random vs. first N rows). It also provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand its role.

  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 fully documents both parameters (limit and table) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 with a specific verb ('return') and resource ('sample rows from a table'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table, which handle schema or metadata rather than actual data rows.

  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 does not mention any context, exclusions, or refer to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this tool.

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

• describe_tableB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Return column metadata' without mentioning whether the operation is safe/read-only, whether it requires special permissions, how errors are handled, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves behavioral expectations unclear.

  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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted words or unnecessary repetition, front-loading the core action.

  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?

  The tool is simple, has a fully documented parameter schema, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks any usage context or mention of when to choose this tool over siblings. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent without guidance on applicability.

  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%: the 'table' parameter already has a detailed description explaining schema.table format and default schema behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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: 'Return column metadata for a table.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('column metadata'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) and sample_data (which returns data rows).

  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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or reference sibling tools. There is no explicit context for choosing describe_table over list_tables or search_schema.

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

• list_tablesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the list operation, the inclusion of comments, and via the parameter description, the default behavior of returning all non-system schemas when no filter is given. However, it does not mention potential permissions, output ordering, or any limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function.

  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, the presence of an output schema, and the parameter's full documentation in the schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the word 'List' implies no side effects. Minor gap: no direct statement about system schema exclusion if a specific schema is provided, but the parameter description already covers this.

  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 provides a complete description for the single optional 'schema' parameter, including examples and default behavior. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-related meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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: listing all tables in the database. The addition 'with their comments' specifies the output detail, distinguishing it from sibling tools that describe single tables or sample data.

  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 its siblings. It merely states what it does, without mentioning alternatives or exclusions. The parameter description offers some behavior context (filtering by schema) but does not address tool selection.

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

• search_schemaA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description goes beyond a generic statement by explaining the internal process: it combines the in-memory schema cache and semantic layer markdown into a prompt, then calls the LLM. Since no annotations are provided, this contextual detail about the tool's behavior is valuable and clarifies that results are LLM-based, not exact matches.

  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 two sentences and immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a concise explanation of how it works. There is no redundancy or 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?

  With a simple two-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how it operates. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and there are no hidden behaviors or complex side effects.

  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 already describes both parameters fully: 'keyword' as a natural language search term and 'type' as an optional filter. The description adds little beyond the schema's coverage, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('tables and columns'), and clarifies it's semantic search using an LLM. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables, describe_table, and sample_data.

  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 the tool is for finding relevant tables/columns by meaning, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisite conditions. The usage intent is implicit rather than explicit.

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