Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_google_chat_cards_v2C
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Send' a message, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success (e.g., message delivery confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage context, parameter details, and behavioral traits, making it adequate only in a narrow sense.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'cardsV2' as required but doesn't explain what this array contains or its structure, and it doesn't address the optional 'text' parameter at all. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Send') and target resource ('Cards V2 message to configured Google Chat webhook'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_google_chat_markdown' or 'send_google_chat_text' beyond mentioning 'Cards V2' format, which is a format distinction but not a full functional comparison.

  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 the sibling tools. It mentions 'Cards V2' format but doesn't explain scenarios where this is preferred over markdown or text messages, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• send_google_chat_textB
  3.1/5.0
  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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends a message, implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'configured Google Chat webhook' hints at external setup but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like authentication needs or potential side effects.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Send a text message', 'to configured Google Chat webhook') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 moderate complexity (a write operation with 1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. It covers the basic 'what' but misses the 'how' and 'when', leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

  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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'text' parameter is the message content, but doesn't elaborate on format, length limits, or encoding. This partially compensates for the schema gap, but leaves key details unspecified, aligning with the baseline for moderate coverage issues.

  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 clearly states the action ('Send a text message') and target resource ('to configured Google Chat webhook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'text' rather than 'cards' or 'markdown', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the name/title.

  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 the sibling tools (send_google_chat_cards_v2, send_google_chat_markdown). It mentions 'configured Google Chat webhook' which implies a prerequisite setup, but offers no explicit usage context, alternatives, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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

• send_google_chat_markdownA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: conversion to Cards V2 format, webhook-based sending, and fallback behavior on failure. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling specifics, or what constitutes 'failure' beyond the fallback.

  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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place - no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description covers the core transformation and delivery mechanism adequately. However, it lacks details about the webhook configuration, authentication, error scenarios beyond fallback, and parameter usage that would make it more complete.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value. It mentions 'markdown' content and 'fallbackToText' behavior by name only, but doesn't explain what 'cardTitle' does, parameter formats, or constraints. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of 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 the specific action ('Convert Markdown to Cards V2 and send'), the resource ('configured Google Chat webhook'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the markdown conversion capability. It explicitly differentiates from send_google_chat_cards_v2 and send_google_chat_text by focusing on markdown input.

  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 clear context about when to use this tool (when you have markdown content to send to Google Chat) and mentions fallback behavior, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives. It implies usage vs. siblings by describing the markdown conversion feature.

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