Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_flow_statsC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation ('Get') but does not mention if it is expensive, requires authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe selection.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very short (one sentence), which might seem concise, but it fails to convey necessary information. It does not earn its place because it adds little value beyond the tool name.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or how to use the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to any of the 4 parameters (dpid, match, table_id, out_port). The agent receives no help understanding parameter roles beyond their names.

  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 'Get flow statistics from a switch' clearly states the action (get) and resource (flow statistics from a switch), distinguishing it from siblings like get_switch_desc or get_switches. However, it could be more specific about what statistics are included.

  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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description lacks any contextual usage advice.

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

• get_switch_descC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or data sensitivity. It implies a read operation but does not confirm safety or discuss response structure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not waste words but also does not provide rich detail. Acceptable for a simple tool, but could be improved.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to specify what 'detailed information' encompasses or any return format. Sibling tools are not referenced to complete the context.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the 'dpid' parameter. It does not explain what 'dpid' represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

  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 'detailed information about a specific switch', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_switches' (likely for listing all switches). However, it could be more specific about what 'detailed information' includes.

  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, such as comparing with 'get_switches' or 'get_flow_stats'. No preconditions or caveats are mentioned.

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

• set_tableC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set' but doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., whether existing flows are overwritten), idempotency, authentication needs, or what happens to unmatched flows. This lack of transparency could lead to unintended consequences.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices critical detail. While it avoids verbosity, it could include more essential information without becoming overly long.

  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 has two parameters (one complex), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not address input formats, behavioral effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to interpret correctly.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'dpid' as a switch identifier and 'flows' as flow entries, but provides no format details (e.g., dpid syntax, flow object structure). The flows parameter is an array of objects with no defined properties, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.

  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 'set' and the resource 'flow table on a switch', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform read or append operations. However, it lacks detail on the scope (e.g., whether it replaces all flows or merges), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

  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 context or guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for initial configuration vs. incremental updates), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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

• append_insightC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'Add' but omits details like idempotency, side effects, or whether insights are appended or overwritten.

  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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose, so it's not perfect.

  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 cover behavior and parameter details. It only covers purpose, leaving gaps in understanding post-conditions and usage.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name 'insight' is vague; the description says 'network insight' but does not clarify format, constraints, or examples, failing to add value beyond 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 the action 'Add a network insight' and the target 'configuration memo'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_flow_stats (retrieval) and set_table (setting table), as this is the only tool for appending insights.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about scenarios like whether the memo must exist beforehand.

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

• get_switchesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description implies a safe read operation, but lacks details on potential failures (e.g., no connected switches) or rate limits. The transparency is adequate for a simple list tool but not thorough.

  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 with no superfluous information, perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

  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 description lacks return value details (e.g., structure of each switch), which is notable since there is no output schema. However, the tool's simplicity and zero parameters mitigate the gap somewhat.

  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?

  With zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the description adds no parameter details but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies per guidelines.

  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 action ('get a list') and the resource ('all connected OpenFlow switches'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_flow_stats or get_switch_desc.

  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, such as when detailed switch descriptions are needed via get_switch_desc.

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