Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ensure_inbox_ruleA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds details: 'zero write calls if already correct', 'never duplicates rules or folders', and the write-enablement condition. This enriches understanding beyond annotations.

  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 concise and well-structured, with a bold introductory statement followed by details. The Args block is efficiently formatted. Minor redundancy with 'THE ONLY WRITE TOOL' emphasis, but overall effective.

  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 operation with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, and enablement condition. However, it lacks information about error handling, return values, or what happens if the folder creation fails. This is adequate but not fully complete.

  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?

  Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides an Args block with clear explanations: name as idempotency key, from_contains as substring match, move_to_folder as target folder. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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's function: 'Idempotently provision one inbox rule' and explains it moves messages matching 'from_contains' to 'move_to_folder'. It also distinguishes itself as 'THE ONLY WRITE TOOL' among siblings, establishing clear identity.

  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 explains idempotency and safety of repeated runs, and notes the environment variable requirement for enablement. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'list_inbox_rules' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'only write tool' hint provides context.

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

• list_inbox_rulesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it returns name, state, conditions, actions. Provides some context beyond annotations 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no fluff. Efficient and focused.

  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 tool, the description fully explains its purpose and output fields. No output schema needed; sibling tools provide context.

  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?

  No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for zero-param tool.

  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?

  Clear verb 'List', specific resource 'inbox message rules', and explicit listing of returned fields (name, state, conditions, actions). Distinct from sibling tools like ensure_inbox_rule and search_messages.

  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?

  States 'Read-only', implying safety. Context of sibling tools (e.g., ensure_inbox_rule) makes usage clear, but no explicit when-not guidance.

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

• auth_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Adds context beyond readOnlyHint annotation: describes the sign-in flow and user interaction. No contradiction, but the annotation's readOnlyHint might imply no side effects, while description mentions starting sign-in. However, it's not a clear contradiction.

  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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with main action, then procedural detail. No wasted words.

  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?

  Complete for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. Description explains behavior and user steps adequately.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description fully covers the zero-parameter need without redundancy.

  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 checks Microsoft 365 auth state and initiates sign-in if needed. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools (all related to email/messaging).

  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 explains when to use (check auth or start sign-in) and instructs to call again after relaying credentials. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives but context makes it clear.

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

• daily_briefingA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the grouping method, configurability via env vars or JSON file, and output format (Markdown). No contradictions.

  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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, no waste.

  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?

  Given one optional parameter and the presence of an output schema (Markdown), the description covers purpose, behavior, configuration, and return format comprehensively.

  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?

  The description mentions 'messages from the last N hours' indirectly describing the 'hours' parameter, but does not explicitly define it. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks direct parameter documentation.

  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 it provides a 'classified digest of recent inbox mail' and groups messages into categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_messages and get_message by serving as a summary tool.

  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 implies usage for a quick overview of recent emails with 'Read-only, no LLM calls' indicating safety. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• get_messageA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including that it retrieves plain-text body and metadata, and details the include_attachments behavior (download and extract text locally for PDF/DOCX/XLSX, list others).

  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 concise: two sentences front-loading the purpose and read-only nature, followed by clear parameter explanations. 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?

  The description covers both parameters and key behaviors. However, it does not specify what 'metadata' includes, and there is no output schema. Still, it is sufficient for use given the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: message_id as a Graph message id from specific sources, and include_attachments with details on extraction behavior. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema types.

  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's purpose: 'Fetch one message: full plain-text body plus metadata. Read-only.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_messages (which retrieves multiple messages) and daily_briefing (a summary).

  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 indicates the tool is for fetching a single message and mentions where to obtain the message_id ('from search_messages or daily_briefing'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to siblings.

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

• search_messagesA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description explicitly says 'Read-only', consistent with annotations. It details query behavior (free-text search, KQL), folder types, date range formats, and max messages. No contradictions with annotations; adds significant behavioral context.

  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 well-structured docstring with a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence provides value; no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the complexity.

  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 could mention return fields (e.g., message metadata). It explains inputs thoroughly but omits output structure. Still, it covers core functionality well for most use cases.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: query (KQL search), folder (well-known or custom), top (1-100), since (ISO 8601 or relative). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's default values.

  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 starts with 'Search or list mail messages. Read-only.' which clearly states the action (search/list) and resource (mail messages). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_message (single message) and list_inbox_rules (rules management).

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explains that an empty query lists messages, provides example KQL syntax, and mentions folder restrictions. It implicitly tells when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., not for a specific message). The 'Read-only' note clarifies it's safe.

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