Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• database_queryB
  3.2/5.0
  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 mentions query/filter behavior and preview/export features but doesn't state whether this is read-only, what the output format looks like, whether it mutates data, whether results are paginated, or the response shape. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is needed.

  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?

  Two sentences, efficient. The first sentence sets the purpose, the second covers output. No wasted words. Though the 'interactive UI' phrase is somewhat out of place for a programmatic tool, overall the structure is compact 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?

  For a filterable query tool with 5 parameters all documented in schema and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent and output features (table preview, export). However, it omits behavior like default date range (30d, though the schema states this in the dateRange description) and doesn't clarify the export behavior or return structure, making it adequate but not complete for a tool with no annotations.

  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 all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The description does list the filter dimensions matching the parameters (date range, category, status, sales rep, amount), adding modest value by grouping them contextually. However, the description doesn't add format details beyond the schema — with 100% coverage, 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?

  Clear verb+resource (query sales database), and specific filter dimensions (date range, category, status, sales rep, amount). However, the mention of 'interactive UI' is confusing for a function tool, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings (though siblings are generic names like hello_world, list_sort, so no real conflict). Slightly muddled by the UI reference but the core purpose is clear.

  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 'use when needing to query/filter sales data' and lists the filter dimensions, giving implicit context for when to use. However, there are no explicit exclusions, when-not-to-use guidance, or alternative tool callouts. The intent is reasonably inferable but not explicitly stated.

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

• feature_flagsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does describe display behavior (shows status per environment, rollout, tags) and the multi-select generation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether code generation modifies state, whether selection persists, or output format since there's no output schema.

  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?

  Two concise sentences covering the main function and key behaviors without verbosity. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose then supported details. Slightly could be tighter, but every sentence earns its place.

  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 moderate-complexity tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains browsing behavior, the multi-select generation capability, and what data is shown. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it could say more about the generated code output or any persistence side effects to be fully complete.

  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 schema already documents all three parameters (flags, filter, environment) with descriptions. The description adds context around the primary action (multi-select to generate hooks) but doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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?

  Description states a clear purpose: browse and select feature flags to generate SDK code. It uses specific verbs and mentions concrete details (flag status per environment, rollout percentages, tags). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the description is specific enough that differentiation is largely self-evident given the disjoint sibling names.

  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 context (browsing/selecting flags before generating code) and mentions multi-select capability for generating hooks. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, and the filter/environment parameter usage is only implied through schema descriptions.

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

• list_sortB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 does reveal the key behaviors (interactive drag, save capability, AI-sort option), which helps the agent understand it's a stateful UI tool rather than a pure computation. However, it doesn't clarify what 'save' does, whether this persists state, what happens client-side vs server-side, or what the response/return value is (no output schema).

  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?

  One concise sentence, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and enumerates capabilities efficiently. Could arguably benefit from a second sentence on return behavior, but as written it's appropriately sized and readable.

  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 UI-drawing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and user interactions adequately. However, given no output schema, it fails to clarify what the tool returns (saved order? success status?), which is a notable gap. With only 2 well-documented parameters it's not a complex signature, but the lack of behavioral/return detail reduces completeness below the high tier.

  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% — both 'items' (list of items to sort) and 'title' (optional title) are documented with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which under the coverage>80% baseline justifies a 3. It doesn't clarify item structure expectations or constraints on label/id values beyond what schema provides.

  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 states the tool displays an interactive list sorting UI with drag-to-reorder, save, and AI-assisted sorting. It's clear about verb ('Display') and resource (interactive list sorting UI), and the capabilities distinguish it from siblings like flame_graph and database_query. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling sorting/search tool, so it's not a highest-scoring 5.

  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 through its interactive UI framing but doesn't explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives. There's no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like flame_graph or database_query. The context of when you'd invoke a UI-drawing tool instead of a data-query tool is left implicit.

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

• flame_graphA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses interactivity ('click frames to zoom') and that it's a display/visualization tool (non-destructive read-like operation). However, it doesn't disclose whether simulated data is used by default (though the schema hints at this), what happens with invalid profile data, or any limitations of the visualization.

  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?

  Three sentences, zero waste. Efficiently conveys purpose, interaction model, and analytical value. Front-loaded with the core function and follows with interaction details.

  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?

  For a visualization display tool with no output schema and no nested complexity, the description covers the essential behavior well. All three parameters are schema-documented. The interactivity and hot-path analysis disclosure give the agent enough to select and invoke it correctly. Minor gap: could state it doesn't modify anything, but this is low-risk for a visualization 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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds the note that profile uses simulated data if not provided (also in schema) and implies the title parameter. No parameter count is 0, so the description doesn't need to compensate heavily. It adds marginal insight (interaction behavior, hot path analysis) but doesn't enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

  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?

  Description says 'Display an interactive flame graph visualization for performance profiling' - clear verb+resource. Shows call hierarchy with execution time. It distinguishes itself from siblings (hello_world, list_sort, feature_flags, database_query) by the specific visualization type and profiling purpose, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

  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?

  Implies use in performance profiling context and mentions hot path analysis, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The profiling context is implied but not stated as a requirement.

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

• hello_worldA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but this is a benign, non-destructive greeting tool. The description is largely self-explanatory; there's minimal behavioral complexity. It doesn't describe the interactive UI's behavior (what happens when showUI is true), which is a minor gap, but acceptable for such a simple 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?

  Single sentence, zero waste. It front-loads the primary action ('Display a Hello World greeting') and appends the optional modifier. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema or nested objects, the description is complete enough. The main action, the resource, and the optional behavior are all covered. A more detailed description would be overkill for this level of simplicity.

  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%, with both 'name' and 'showUI' having descriptions in the schema. The description adds the 'interactive UI' context that maps to the showUI boolean. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description offers marginal additional semantic value.

  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 states a specific verb+resource ('Display a Hello World greeting') with a clear modification ('with optional interactive UI'). It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools (list_sort, flame_graph, feature_flags, database_query). The purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings given their differing names.

  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 its usage (displaying a greeting, optionally with UI), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative suggestions. For a simple greeting tool, clear context exists, though no exclusions or alternative recommendations are offered.

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