Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_summaryB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, output format, or any behavioral constraints.

  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?

  One sentence, immediately front-loaded with the purpose, no unnecessary words.

  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 has three parameters and no output schema, yet the description only gives a one-line purpose, leaving gaps about when to use it and what the resulting summary contains.

  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 the description adds no additional meaning beyond the well-documented parameters; 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?

  States a specific action (generate) and resource (human-readable summary for a release), clearly distinct from sibling tools that compare releases or fetch changes.

  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?

  Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over compare_releases or get_release_changes; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• compare_releasesB
  3.3/5.0
  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. It states that it 'show[s] differences category-wise', but does not disclose whether it is a safe read-only operation, what the output structure looks like, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is minimal for a comparison 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?

  A single sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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 with two fully described parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, limitations) and usage guidance. It is adequate for a basic comparison tool but leaves gaps in the absence of annotations and output schema.

  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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including available version values (11.46, 11.44), so the description adds no new semantics about parameter syntax or relationships. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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 uses the specific verb 'compare' with the resource 'two Commvault release versions' and the outcome 'show differences category-wise', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_release_changes or generate_summary, which are not about comparing two versions.

  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 over alternatives such as get_release_changes or get_category_changes. It only states the function, without exclusions or contextual recommendations.

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

• get_release_changesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, filtering behavior, or any side effects. It only states what it does, not how it behaves.

  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, focused sentence with no redundant information, earning top marks for conciseness.

  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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and return format. The sibling tool context signals exist but are not referenced.

  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 covers 100% of parameters, with descriptions for version (including available values) and category (including available values). The description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies on the schema.

  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 'Get all changes for a selected release', using a specific verb (get) and resource (release changes). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_releases and get_category_changes, as it targets all changes for a single release.

  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 guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus get_category_changes or generate_summary, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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

• get_category_changesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the purpose and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, ordering). The term 'Get' hints at read-only, but this is implied, not explicit.

  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 that conveys the essence without extra words. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 has a simple interface with good parameter documentation, but no output schema or annotations. The description does not clarify return value structure or any behavioral constraints, leaving some gaps. However, for a straightforward get operation, it is minimally adequate.

  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%, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., category lists available values, start/end_version list version options). The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema ('selected category' and 'across releases'), so baseline 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 'Get changes for a selected category across releases' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (changes for a selected category), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like compare_releases or get_release_changes. The category scope and 'across releases' provide clear differentiation.

  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 retrieving category-specific change history across releases, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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