Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_drift_detailsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description clearly conveys that the tool returns the latest drift check details including plan output, showing resource changes. It does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or cost, but for a read operation it is sufficiently transparent.

  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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second explains what it shows, and the third highlights importance. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  The description explains the output contents (plan output, resources added/changed/destroyed), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not mention format or pagination, but is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already clearly define project_key and environment_key.

  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 uses a specific verb 'get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'drift check details' for an environment, including the full plan output. It distinguishes from siblings like get_environment_info and list_environments by focusing on drift-specific information.

  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 implicitly states it's essential for understanding what needs to be fixed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like get_environment_info or list_projects_with_drift. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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

• get_environment_infoA
  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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly describes the tool as returning information (read-only), but it does not mention any potential limitations, permissions, or side effects. The description is straightforward but lacks deeper behavioral context beyond the output fields.

  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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating functionality and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies key return fields and the intended use case. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential error cases or the output format, but the existing information suffices for basic usage.

  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%, setting baseline at 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (project_key, environment_key) beyond what the schema already provides. It focuses on output fields instead of input semantics, so no extra value.

  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 detailed information about an environment') and specifies the returned data (GitHub URL, branch, directory path). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like list_environments (which lists all) and get_drift_details (which returns drift), making the tool's unique purpose evident.

  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?

  The description provides a clear use case: 'Use this to know where to find and clone the IaC code for remediation.' It implies when to use this tool (for detailed environment info) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling context helps, but direct exclusions are missing.

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

• list_environmentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description covers core behavior (listing, filtering, return fields) but omits potential side effects, permissions, or limitations like pagination.

  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 concise sentences with front-loaded primary action and efficient additional 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, filter, and return fields; minor omission of pagination or limits.

  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?

  Schema covers both parameters with descriptions; description adds value by explaining the status filter's purpose and listing return fields.

  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 lists all environments for a specific project with their status, and distinguishes from siblings like get_drift_details or list_projects_with_drift.

  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?

  Provides guidance on when to use the status filter to find drifting environments, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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

• list_projects_with_driftA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description indicates a read-only listing operation and specifies output fields. It lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination, which are minimal for this 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?

  The description is two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and contains no unnecessary words.

  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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It is slightly lacking on ordering or filtering details but is sufficient for the complexity.

  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 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and output, earning the baseline 4.

  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 specifies listing projects with drift or error status and details the returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_drift_details or list_environments.

  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?

  The description states 'Use this to discover which projects need attention', implying a monitoring use case, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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