Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_k6_scriptA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context by stating it is deterministic templating (not an LLM call) and reviewable before running, and it discloses the return of a runDir. However, it omits side effects like file system writes, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral and integration context. No redundant 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?

  The description conveys the tool's role and output sufficiently for a simple generator, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means more detail is needed about the returned runDir and potential side effects. The rich nested schema offsets some context gaps, but the description alone is not fully complete for a complex plan input.

  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%, and the description only lists high-level components (base URL, weighted request mix, load profile, thresholds) without explaining the structure of the plan. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage; the user must rely on the nested schema descriptions for parameter meaning.

  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's function: transforming a structured test plan into a runnable k6 JavaScript script. It identifies the specific resource (k6 script) and differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the generation step that produces a runDir for downstream 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 implies its use as the first step in a pipeline by naming all later steps (smoke_test_script, run_load_test, get_test_metrics) as consumers of its output. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative scenarios.

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

• run_full_testA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the internal pipeline with arrows, showing the sequence and that it runs the full flow. It does not mention failure behavior, duration, or real load side effects, but the chain itself is clearly disclosed.

  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: the first states the pipeline, the second gives alternative usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence earns its place 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?

  Given the tool's complexity as a multi-step convenience wrapper, the description adequately explains the workflow and when to use granular tools instead. It does not describe the return value or failure semantics, and there is no output schema, but the pipeline names (e.g., get_test_metrics) and alternatives make it reasonably complete for an agent.

  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?

  The description adds no parameter-level information. The schema has a single `plan` parameter with 0% top-level schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining what the plan should contain or how it maps to the chained tools. The nested schema is helpful, but the description itself contributes nothing to parameter semantics.

  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's purpose: it chains generate_k6_script -> smoke_test_script -> run_load_test -> get_test_metrics. The title also explicitly says 'Generate, smoke-test, run, and summarize a load test in one call,' and the description distinguishes it from its granular siblings by naming them and framing this as a convenience wrapper.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says to use the granular tools instead when you want to inspect/adjust the script between steps, or re-run the same script with different load without regenerating it. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, making the alternative usage obvious.

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

• run_load_testA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the test duration, host restrictions, and authorization requirements, plus the ordering constraint with smoke_test_script. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or error behavior, which is a minor gap.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and then adds necessary warnings and prerequisites. It is dense but not verbose, earning a high score.

  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?

  With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, duration, and host configuration. It lacks explicit mention of how to retrieve results, but the existence of get_test_metrics as a sibling tool partially compensates.

  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 single parameter runDir is fully described in the schema as returned by generate_k6_script. The description reinforces that context but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool executes a load test using pre-generated parameters, with a specific verb ('executes') and resource ('load test at the VUs/duration/stages baked into the generated script'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the script from generate_k6_script and implying smoke_test_script is a lighter alternative.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call smoke_test_script first, and prerequisites like adding the host to allowedHosts after confirming authorization. It also tells the user what the tool will not do ('the tools won't do it for you'), which clarifies responsibility.

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

• get_test_metricsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool parses a file (implying a read-only operation), produces deterministic metrics, and emphasizes the numbers are computed in code, not guessed. This adds useful reliability context, though it does not explicitly mention lack of side effects or failure 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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and output metrics; the second sentence adds direct usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

  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 what the tool does, what metrics it returns, and when to use it. Although no output schema exists, the list of metrics is explicit. It could add a note about behavior if the summary JSON is missing, but for a one-parameter tool, it is sufficiently complete.

  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 runDir parameter fully documented as the return value from generate_k6_script and intended for use after run_load_test completes. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 'parses' with the resource 'k6 summary JSON' and enumerates the exact metrics produced (p50/p90/p95/p99, error rate, RPS, threshold pass/fail). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate scripts or run tests.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly instructs to use this data (not raw console output) for writing the human-readable performance summary, giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also implies the prerequisite that the run must be completed through the parameter description.

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

• smoke_test_scriptA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the minimal execution scope (1 VU/1 iteration), the purpose (fast error detection), and the workflow position. It does not detail side effects or output, but for a smoke-test tool this is acceptable and non-contradictory.

  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?

  Two sentences, tightly packed with purpose, scope, and usage order. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context: what it runs, at what scale, and when to invoke it. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but these are not critical for the primary workflow.

  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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter (runDir) already described as being returned by generate_k6_script. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but schema fully covers it.

  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?

  Description states a specific action ('Runs the script for 1 VU / 1 iteration') with clear scope and intent ('catch syntax or runtime errors fast'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_load_test by explicitly contrasting with a full load test.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always call this before run_load_test.' This also implies when not to use it (i.e., not for full load testing) and names the key alternative.

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