Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_contactC
  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 behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new contact' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, error conditions, or what happens on success. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and any indication of what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

  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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

  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 ('Create') and resource ('contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_contact' or specify what makes a 'new' contact distinct, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like 'update_contact' or 'get_contact'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as when a contact might already exist, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

• get_recent_contactsC
  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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves contacts based on date criteria but doesn't mention important behaviors like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), pagination details beyond the 'limit' parameter, error handling, or performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks context about what the tool actually does beyond the basic filter.

  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 any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does in a clear and concise manner.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and behavioral implications. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list of contacts with fields), error cases, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a retrieval tool with date filtering, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying date-range filtering, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info in the description.

  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 ('Get contacts') and scope ('created or modified within a date range'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (singular) or 'search_contacts', which might offer different filtering capabilities or scopes.

  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 like 'get_contact' or 'search_contacts'. It mentions a date range filter but doesn't specify if this is the primary method for retrieving recent contacts or if other tools might be better for different use cases.

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

• search_contactsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search functionality but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens on no matches. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully utilize the tool effectively.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing the searchable fields ('name, organization, or notes'), which aligns with the schema's description for 'query', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

  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 ('Search for contacts') and the searchable fields ('by name, organization, or notes'), which provides a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_contacts' or 'get_contact', which might also retrieve contacts but through different mechanisms.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_contacts' over 'get_recent_contacts' (for recent items) or 'get_contact' (for specific IDs), nor does it provide any context about 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.

• update_contactC
  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 behavioral disclosure. While 'Update an existing contact' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify what happens to fields not included in the update (partial vs. full replacement), whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, how partial updates work, or provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for safe and correct usage is lacking.

  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 adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

  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 ('Update') and target resource ('an existing contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_contact' beyond the 'existing' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

  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 like 'create_contact' or 'get_contact'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose appropriately among the sibling tools.

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

• get_contactB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] full contact details', implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse, and every word earns its place by specifying key details like 'full contact details' and 'by name or ID'.

  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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, which are needed for a complete understanding. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple retrieval tool.

  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%, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Contact name or unique ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples, validation rules, or disambiguation between name and ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full contact details'), specifying it retrieves information by name or ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_contact' (creation) and 'update_contact' (modification), but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_recent_contacts' (which likely retrieves multiple recent contacts) or 'search_contacts' (which may allow broader queries).

  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 like 'get_recent_contacts' or 'search_contacts'. It implies usage for retrieving a single contact by identifier, but does not specify scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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