Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_tableB
  3.1/5.0
  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 returns column names and types, which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if the table doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 (metadata retrieval with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output structure, which are important for a tool without structured output documentation.

  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%, meaning the input schema fully documents the two parameters ('table' and 'schema') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles 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 ('Return') and the resource ('column names and types for a table'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' (which likely lists table names) or 'query' (which likely executes queries), though the distinction is somewhat implied by the specific focus on table metadata.

  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_tables' or 'query'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the table to exist, or any context for when this metadata retrieval is appropriate. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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

• list_tablesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or output format. The description adds basic context but lacks depth.

  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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes optional filtering. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

  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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral context, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly.

  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 already documents the 'schema' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('tables in the current database'), with specific scope ('optionally filtered by schema'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'describe_table' (detailed view) and 'query' (data retrieval).

  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 provides clear context for usage ('optionally filtered by schema'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_table' or 'query'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• queryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 effectively communicates the read-only nature and SQL Server context, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or result formatting. It adds value beyond basic purpose but does not fully cover behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

  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 key information (action, read-only nature, query type, and database). There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.

  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 (SQL query execution), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core purpose and read-only behavior, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It is complete enough for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

  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 'sql' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by reinforcing the query type ('SELECT') and database target, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 specific action ('Execute a read-only SQL query') and resource ('against the configured SQL Server database'), with explicit mention of 'SELECT' to distinguish it from potential write operations. It directly addresses what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 for usage by specifying 'read-only SQL query (SELECT)', which implies when to use this tool (for data retrieval) and when not to use it (for write operations like INSERT/UPDATE). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like sibling tools (describe_table, list_tables) or other query types, leaving some guidance implicit.

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