Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• aggregate_logsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions aggregation by criteria without detailing behavioral traits. It omits information on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or destructive, leaving significant gaps 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it lacks structural elements like examples or clarifications that could enhance usability.

  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's complexity (aggregation with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the aggregation returns (e.g., counts, summaries) or provide context needed for effective use, leaving key aspects undocumented.

  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 parameters like 'files' and 'group_by'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining criteria or aggregation methods, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the action ('aggregate') and resource ('log data') but lacks specificity about what aggregation entails (e.g., counting, summing, averaging). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_log_stats' or 'query_logs', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_log_stats' or 'query_logs'. The description implies usage for grouping log data but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.

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

• get_log_statsC
  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 'gets' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like performance impact, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'overall statistics' entail (e.g., counts, averages, summaries). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with every part earning its place.

  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 'overall statistics' include (e.g., format, data types) or behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that likely returns aggregated data, more context is needed to help the agent use it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'files' parameter documented as 'Log files to analyze (default: all files)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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.

  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') and resource ('overall statistics for log files'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs' or 'query_logs', which might also involve log analysis.

  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 'aggregate_logs' or 'query_logs'. It lacks context about scenarios where overall statistics are preferred over detailed queries or aggregation, 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.

• query_logsC
  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. While 'Search and filter' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is safe, whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with 8 parameters.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

  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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. The description should provide more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

  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 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the 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 tool's purpose as 'Search and filter log entries across log files', which specifies the verb (search/filter) and resource (log entries). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs' and 'get_log_stats' by focusing on searching/filtering rather than aggregation or statistics, though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

  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 'aggregate_logs' or 'get_log_stats'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• list_log_filesB
  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 mentions listing files with metadata, but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the metadata includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with log files.

  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 available log files') and adds a useful detail ('with metadata') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or return format, and doesn't address sibling tool differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

  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 ('List') and resource ('available log files'), and includes metadata as an output detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_logs' or 'aggregate_logs', which might also involve log file operations, 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 such as 'query_logs' or 'get_log_stats'. It lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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