Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sunucu_sagligiA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description notes the tool is read-only ('Salt-okunur'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other potential behaviors like permission requirements or side effects. The read-only hint is useful but incomplete.

  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, concise sentence that efficiently lists the tool's output fields. No extraneous words or redundant information.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields (version, edition, CPU, memory, uptime, database counts). However, it does not specify the exact output format or scope (e.g., single instance vs. cluster), but it is sufficient for a simple health summary.

  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 no parameters, so the description inherently provides complete information about inputs. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, no additional parameter details are needed.

  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 provides a general health summary of SQL Server, listing specific metrics (version, edition, CPU, memory, uptime, databases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on active queries or missing indexes.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aktif_sorgular_blocking' or 'eksik_indexler'. It only describes what it does, without context on appropriate use cases or limitations.

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

• eksik_indexlerA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Salt-okunur, index OLUSTURMAZ, yalniz onerir'), which is crucial behavioral info. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool, this is sufficient.

  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 very concise: a single sentence stating the tool's purpose, sorting, and fields, followed by a key behavioral note about read-only. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

  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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (veritabani, tablo, kullanim, etki skoru, esitlik/esitsizlik/dahil kolonlar) and stating the sort order. It lacks details like data types or pagination, but for a simple list tool, it is nearly complete.

  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 no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, zero params sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly omits any param info.

  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 identifies the tool as listing missing indexes recommended by SQL Server, sorted by impact score, and explicitly states it is read-only and does not create indexes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aktif_sorgular_blocking' and 'sunucu_sagligi' by focusing on index recommendations.

  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 minimal usage context ('Performans icin' - for performance) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• aktif_sorgular_blockingA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description declares the tool as read-only ('Salt-okunur') and describes expected output. This is sufficient transparency for a read-only diagnostic query, though it could mention if the operation is lightweight.

  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?

  Two tight sentences: first enumerates output fields, second gives use case and safety. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output details, usage context, and safety (read-only). No gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by describing the output fields and usage context, going well beyond the empty 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?

  Description clearly states the tool displays current running queries and blocking chains with specific fields (session, blocker, wait type/duration, CPU, elapsed time, query text). The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools (eksik_indexler, sunucu_sagligi) which cover missing indexes and server health.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states it's the first check for server slowness ('Sunucum neden yavas?' icin ilk bakilacak), providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but context is strong enough.

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