Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_queryC
  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 full burden. It mentions 'return results' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether queries can modify data (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE), authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or result size limitations. For a tool that could be destructive, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

  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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 database query execution (potential for data modification, security implications) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, permissions, result formatting details, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to navigate.

  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%, providing detailed documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that queries can include various SQL statements (SELECT, INSERT, etc.). It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'execute' and resource 'SQL query against a database', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables' by focusing on query execution rather than metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'execute_script', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 'execute_script' or other siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database connectivity), appropriate query types, or scenarios where other tools might be better suited. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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

• list_databasesC
  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 mentions listing databases but fails to describe what 'available' means (e.g., accessible vs. all), potential permissions required, rate limits, or output structure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database server.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 database operations and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or result format details, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.

  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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all databases available on a database server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from 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 'list_tables' or 'describe_table', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid connection. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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

• list_tablesC
  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 but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or what the output looks like (structure, pagination, etc.).

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

  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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a database context, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all tables in a database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'describe_table', which would require specifying scope or output differences.

  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 'list_databases' (for databases instead of tables) or 'describe_table' (for detailed table metadata). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a valid connection string or database access.

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

• describe_tableA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's cached, rate limits, or what happens with invalid table names. The description only states what information is returned, not how the tool behaves.

  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. Every word contributes value - 'Get detailed schema information' establishes the action, 'for a specific table' specifies scope, and '(columns, types, constraints)' provides concrete examples of what's returned.

  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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and output format details. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation coverage about safety, permissions, or error behavior.

  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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'table' generically but doesn't provide additional context about table naming, case sensitivity, or schema qualification.

  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 ('Get detailed schema information') and target resource ('for a specific table'), with explicit details about what information is returned ('columns, types, constraints'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tables' (which lists tables) and 'execute_query' (which runs queries).

  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 implies usage when detailed table schema is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tables' (which might provide basic table info) or 'execute_query' (which could query schema tables). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• execute_scriptA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the sequential execution behavior, which is valuable. However, it lacks critical details like transaction handling (e.g., auto-commit, rollback on error), permissions required, or potential side-effects (e.g., data modification), leaving gaps for a mutation-capable 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Execute a multi-statement SQL script against a database') and adds essential behavioral context ('All statements are executed in sequence') without any wasted words.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that can mutate data. It lacks details on error handling, result format (beyond output_format param), or transactional behavior, which are crucial for safe usage. However, the purpose and basic execution flow are clear.

  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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'script' contains multiple statements, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('execute'), resource ('multi-statement SQL script'), and target ('against a database'), with explicit mention of sequential execution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_query (likely single statement) and describe_table/list_tables (metadata 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 description implies usage for multi-statement scripts (vs. single statements), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single queries) or name alternatives like execute_query, leaving some ambiguity compared to siblings.

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