Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_component_configsC
  2.8/5.0
  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. While 'List all configurations' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the configurations are returned in. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configurations' means in this context, what format they're returned in, whether there are limitations on what can be listed, or provide any operational context. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

  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 1 undocumented parameter, the description provides no additional semantic information about the 'component_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid component ID, where to find component IDs, or provide any examples or constraints beyond what's minimally implied by the parameter name.

  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 all configurations') and the target resource ('for a specific component'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_components', which appears to list components rather than their configurations.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_components' or other metadata tools on the server.

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

• get_bucket_metadataC
  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 action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with storage systems.

  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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential return formats, or behavioral traits like safety and performance. For a tool that likely provides metadata, 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'bucket_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, 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.

  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 the resource 'detailed information about a specific bucket', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_bucket_info' or 'get_table_metadata', which likely serve related but distinct purposes, preventing 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. With siblings such as 'list_bucket_info' and 'get_table_metadata' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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

• get_table_metadataC
  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 tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if the table doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the tool's action from the information retrieved.

  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 (retrieving metadata for a specific table), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, leaving gaps in completeness.

  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%, with the single parameter 'table_id' documented as 'Unique ID of the table.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific table'), including what information is retrieved ('DB identifier and column information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_bucket_tables' or 'query_table', 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'list_bucket_tables' (which might list tables) or 'query_table' (which might query table data).

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

• list_bucket_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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires specific permissions, or what format the 'basic information' returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral details given the lack of annotations.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns multiple items, this leaves the agent with insufficient context for 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 input schema already documents the single 'bucket_id' parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does 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 all tables') and target resource ('in a specific bucket'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_bucket_info' or 'get_table_metadata', which might offer similar or 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 'list_bucket_info' or 'query_table'. It mentions 'basic information' but doesn't clarify what that includes or exclude compared to other tools, leaving the agent to guess about appropriate usage contexts.

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

• list_bucket_infoB
  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 action ('List information') but doesn't describe what 'information' includes, whether it's paginated, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. 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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'information' is returned, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

  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 ('information about all buckets in the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bucket_metadata' or 'list_bucket_tables', which might offer 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 'get_bucket_metadata' or 'list_bucket_tables'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

• list_componentsB
  3.2/5.0
  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 action ('List all available components and their configurations') but doesn't reveal critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

  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 action ('List all available components and their configurations') with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a basic overview. However, it lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in context with other tools.

  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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary param details, earning a high baseline score for not overcomplicating a parameterless tool.

  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 ('components and their configurations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_component_configs', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing 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_component_configs' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or any explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• query_tableA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 does well by specifying that this is for SQL SELECT queries only (implying read-only operations), mentioning Snowflake's case-sensitivity requirements, and providing implementation guidance about fully qualified table names. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like query timeouts, result size limits, or authentication requirements.

  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 well-structured and efficiently organized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides bulleted implementation guidance, and concludes with concrete examples. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and apply the information.

  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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides reasonable coverage of the execution behavior and requirements. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (result format, error responses), which is a significant gap given the absence of output schema. The description adequately covers the input requirements but leaves the output behavior unspecified.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'sql_query', the schema already documents this parameter adequately. The description adds some value by providing examples and formatting requirements (double quotes, fully qualified names), but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline expectation 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 tool 'executes an SQL SELECT query to get the data from the underlying snowflake database', which specifies the verb (executes), resource (SQL SELECT query), and target system (Snowflake database). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_table_metadata or list_bucket_tables, which appear to be metadata-focused rather than data retrieval tools.

  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 - for executing SQL SELECT queries against Snowflake databases. It mentions prerequisites like using fully qualified table names and referencing table information from other tools, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives 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.