Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• count_recordsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation (returning count) and the route, but omits details such as error handling, performance implications, or any side effects. This leaves agents with limited understanding of the tool's behavior beyond its core function.

  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 sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It adheres to front-loading by placing the verb 'Return' at the beginning, and contains no extraneous information.

  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 counting tool with a single enum parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness. It identifies the key input and the action, leaving detailed return-value structure to the output schema. However, it could be improved by noting that an invalid 'kind' may cause an error.

  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 schema has one parameter 'kind' with enum values, but the description does not explain the meaning of each value or provide any additional context. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it merely restates the parameter name without enriching its 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 function: returning the number of records for a given 'kind', and explicitly mentions the `/count` route. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_records' and 'get_record' by focusing on counting rather than fetching data.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling names implies usage for counting instead of listing or getting records, but the description does not articulate conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

• get_recordA
  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 implies a read operation, mentions 1-based indexing, but does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or confirm it is non-destructive.

  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 concise sentence. The route mention provides context but is slightly redundant.

  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 output schema exists, description does not need to cover return values. It covers the core functionality for a simple get operation, though missing error scenarios.

  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 description adds that id is 1-based, which is not in the schema. But for kind, it only repeats the parameter name. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

  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 'Return a single record' with the specific parameters kind and id. It distinguishes from siblings like list_records which return multiple records, and count_records which returns counts.

  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?

  It mentions the 1-based id and the route pattern, implying RESTful usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_records or count_records.

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

• list_recordsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states the return value and special case for 'empty' kind, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or safety. Since it is a read operation, it is adequate but could be more explicit.

  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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers core behavior, parameter usage, and the 'empty' special case. It lacks details on error handling or ordering beyond 'front of the pool', but is largely sufficient.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value. It explains that 'count' caps the returned records from the front, and that 'empty' kind returns []. However, it does not elaborate on 'kind' beyond naming it, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 it returns a 'seeded pool of records' for a given 'kind', using a specific verb. It differentiates from siblings like 'count_records' and 'get_record' by implying this tool returns a list.

  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 explains parameter usage (count, empty) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'count_records' or 'get_record'. The context is implied but lacks direct guidance.

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

• server_infoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only operation (health/status) via a GET route, which is non-destructive and safe. While it doesn't detail the specific fields returned (handled by output schema), the behavioral nature is clear.

  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?

  A single sentence that is clear and to the point. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource efficiently.

  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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It tells what the tool does. Minor improvement could mention it returns server health status, but it's sufficient.

  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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). With no params, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; baseline 4 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 returns 'Health/status of the server' via the REST server's GET / route. It specifies the verb (get health/status) and resource (server), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with records.

  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?

  No explicit when/when-not/alternatives are given. However, the context of sibling tools (count_records, get_record, list_records) implies this is for server health, not data operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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