Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• schema_toolC
  2.4/5.0
  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 only states it retrieves schema info but does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with key action, but lacks necessary detail. It is minimally concise at the expense of completeness.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given no output schema, no annotations, and 2 under-documented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed schema information' entails or how to use the optional dbAlias.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters (dbAlias, tableName) beyond the bare schema. The description fails to add meaning, e.g., the role of dbAlias or format of tableName.

  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 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed schema information for a specific table'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like query_tool, which might also retrieve schema-related data.

  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?

  No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as execute_tool or query_tool. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusionary conditions.

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

• execute_toolC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Uses the word 'Safely' but does not elaborate on safety mechanisms, error handling, or any behavioral traits. No annotations provided to compensate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  Single sentence, adequately concise but too brief to provide useful information beyond the name.

  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?

  With no output schema, no annotations, and 3 undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete for an SQL execution tool. Does not explain return values or parameter usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description does not mention any parameters despite 0% schema coverage. No explanation of 'params', 'dbAlias', or 'statement' meaning beyond the schema.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Safely execute a data-modifying SQL statement', specifying verb (execute) and resource (SQL statement), and distinguishes from read-only query_tool and schema_tool.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use vs. sibling tools (query_tool, schema_tool, transaction_tool). Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

• query_toolC
  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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'safely' and 'read-only', but fails to cover error handling, authentication requirements, result format, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal disclosure leaves significant uncertainty about tool behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. It is front-loaded with the purpose but omits parameter explanations and usage context. Every sentence should earn its place; this one only partially does.

  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 tool complexity (3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It fails to document how to use parameters, the output format, or how this tool relates to siblings. Significant gaps remain for the agent to function correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no details about the three parameters (statement, params, dbAlias). It does not explain what params does, how to format the statement, or the role of dbAlias. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema.

  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: 'Safely execute a read-only SQL query and retrieve results'. It specifies a verb ('execute'), a resource ('SQL query'), and a key constraint ('read-only'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_tool (likely for writes) and transaction_tool (for transactional operations).

  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 for read-only queries via the 'read-only' qualifier, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_tool for writes or transaction_tool for transactions. No when-not guidance or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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

• transaction_toolB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Atomic transaction' implies ACID properties, but doesn't disclose rollback behavior, error handling, timeouts, or constraints. Adequate but not detailed.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core functionality.

  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?

  No output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools suggest similar operations. Description lacks details on return values, error handling, transaction lifecycle, or limitations. Incomplete for a multi-statement tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning description adds no information about parameters like dbAlias or operations. The term 'multiple SQL statements' loosely maps to operations array but does not explain structure, required fields, or defaults.

  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 multiple SQL statements atomically, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_tool (likely single statement) and query_tool (read-only) by emphasizing atomic multi-statement execution.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_tool or query_tool. Description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use.

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