Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cgm_data_inventoryB
  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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. The implied read-only behavior is not explicitly confirmed.

  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 front-loads the key information. No redundant words. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

  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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema profile, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it would benefit from a hint about the output format (e.g., structured vs. plain text) or intended use-case (e.g., retrieving thresholds for calculations). Still, it is adequate for a simple inventory retrieval.

  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 and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 applies, but the simplicity of a parameterless call justifies a 4.

  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 tool returns a metric catalog and thresholds (TIR ranges, GMI formula reference). The verb 'returns' and resource 'metric catalog plus thresholds' provide a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like cgm_capabilities or cgm_agent_manifest.

  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 versus alternatives (e.g., cgm_capabilities). The description lacks context about whether it's for initial setup, ongoing reference, or exploration. No when-not-to-use information is provided.

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

• cgm_agent_manifestA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (list of tools, clients, env vars, etc.), which is sufficient for a read-only manifest retrieval. Could mention auth needs, but not critical.

  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 that front-loads the main action and lists contents. It is concise, though a bullet list might improve readability for the enumerated items.

  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 covers the tool's purpose and output but omits the optional 'client' parameter. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

  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?

  The input schema has one optional parameter 'client' with a clear enum, but the description does not mention or explain this parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning 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 tool returns the agent manifest and enumerates its contents (tool list, supported clients, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific CGM operations.

  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 getting the manifest, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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