Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tablesC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic function but does not elaborate on side effects, read-only nature, error handling (e.g., what if the database doesn't exist), or the meaning of 'default' database. This lack of detail limits transparency.

  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 sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and to the point, using no filler words.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it misses details like what 'default' database refers to or whether the tool requires any privileges. It does not fully prepare the agent for all usage scenarios.

  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 100% for the single parameter 'database', which already explains its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating 'in a specified database', which is already implicit from 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?

  The description 'List all tables in a specified database' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (tables), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_databases (lists databases) and describe_table (describes a single table). However, the word 'specified' implies the database parameter is required, while the schema marks it as optional, causing minor ambiguity.

  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 describe_table or execute_query. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

• execute_queryB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It declares read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, but does not disclose result format, performance, or error handling. The parameter schema already specifies allowed statements, so description adds little beyond that.

  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 of 5 words with no redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format of the executed query. It also omits potential side effects (though read-only) and error scenarios. For a query tool, this is somewhat acceptable but could be more 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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

  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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'read-only SQL query', distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_table which describe schema. The title is null but description suffices.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that for table metadata users should use describe_table or list_tables. The description is standalone without context.

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

• describe_tableB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'show the schema' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, idempotency, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 with no waste. However, it could include a brief note on sibling differentiation or usage context, but overall it is appropriately concise.

  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 simple introspection tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., table must exist). It does not reference siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., clarifying what 'table' or 'database' refer to). It does not enhance parameter semantics.

  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?

  "Show the schema for a specific table" uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_tables and execute_query.

  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 schema retrieval, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_tables (which only lists names) or execute_query (for custom queries). No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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

• list_databasesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates it returns 'all accessible databases', which is a basic behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so the disclosure is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. It does not mention permissions, system databases, or performance implications.

  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 of 9 words front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information, 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?

  Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. It could be enhanced by clarifying 'accessible' (user privileges) or whether system databases are included, but it is sufficient for a basic list operation.

  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, so the description need not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.

  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 verb 'List' and resource 'databases', specifying scope 'all accessible' and context 'MySQL server'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when-not, or references to sibling tools.

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