Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_tableA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by enumerating the exact metadata returned (columns, data types, NULL allowance, defaults, primary key). It is consistent with the annotation and gives the agent clear expectations of output content.

  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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and lists all relevant output aspects without unnecessary 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?

  For a low-complexity metadata inspection tool, the description plus schema and readOnlyHint are sufficient. It covers purpose, input, output content, and safety; no output schema is necessary because the description already specifies the return fields.

  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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (table name, schema name) at 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the burden effectively, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and identifies the exact resource: table columns, data types, nullability, defaults, and primary key. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables (listing tables) and query (querying data).

  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 usage context is implied: use this when you need table schema metadata rather than table names or actual data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• list_tablesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description's added value is limited to noting it includes both tables and views and that schema information is returned. It does not mention return format, pagination, or performance characteristics, which would be additional useful context. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 in Korean that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, achieving high efficiency.

  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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only annotation), the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns (tables and views with schemas) and no critical information is missing, even without an output schema.

  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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0-param tools receive a baseline of 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details because none 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 lists all tables and views in the database along with their schemas. The verb '나열합니다' (lists) and the resource 'tables and views' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like describe_table (specific table) and query (execute queries).

  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 tool's usage context is clear: use it to get an overview of all tables and views. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like describe_table or query, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is self-evident but could be more direct.

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

• queryA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that multiple statements, writes, and EXEC are rejected, reinforcing the read-only nature. It also clarifies the parameter binding limitation, which is useful context beyond the annotation.

  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-loaded with the main action ('Run a single SELECT statement'), and then provides restrictions. Every sentence contributes information with no filler.

  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 the tool's purpose, constraints, and parameter binding, which is sufficient for a read-only query tool. It doesn't describe the return format, but the lack of an output schema makes this less critical. The schema and annotations cover safety and parameter details.

  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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds valuable semantics by explaining the @name syntax and that params can only bind values, not table or column names. This complements the schema 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 'SELECT 문 하나를 실행합니다' (executes a single SELECT statement), specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table, which focus on metadata.

  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 explicit constraints: multiple statements, writes, and EXEC are rejected, and parameters can only bind values, not identifiers. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools for non-query scenarios.

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