Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tablesC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows table lists but doesn't describe return format (e.g., array of names, pagination), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database system.

  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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by front-loading the core action more explicitly).

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a database tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, metadata included), error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with one parameter but potentially complex database interactions, more context is needed.

  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 single 'database' parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates within a database context, which is already clear from the schema. 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.

  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: '보여줍니다' (shows/displays) + '모든 테이블 목록' (all table list) + '특정 데이터베이스 내의' (within a specific database). It specifies the verb (show/list), resource (tables), and scope (within a database), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'get_table_schema'.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_databases' (for listing databases instead of tables) or 'get_table_schema' (for detailed table info), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• query_tableC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'limited rows returned', which hints at a constraint, but fails to cover critical aspects like read-only status, potential permissions needed, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a query tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose and a key constraint ('limited rows returned'). It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 complexity of a database query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('database', 'table', 'limit') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

  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 ('query_table' translates to 'retrieve data from a specific table') and the resource ('table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_schema' (which might return metadata) or 'list_tables' (which lists tables rather than querying data), missing full sibling distinction.

  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 'get_table_schema' or 'list_tables'. It mentions 'limited rows returned', but this doesn't clarify usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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

• get_table_schemaB
  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. While it implies a read operation ('가져옵니다' - retrieves), it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap 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.

  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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 (2 required parameters, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) and does not reference sibling tools, which could improve completeness for agent usage.

  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%, with both parameters ('database' and 'table') clearly documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  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: '특정 테이블의 스키마(컬럼 정의)를 가져옵니다' translates to 'Retrieves the schema (column definitions) of a specific table.' This specifies the verb ('가져옵니다' - retrieves) and resource ('스키마' - schema). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'query_table', which would require a 5.

  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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_databases', 'list_tables', or 'query_table', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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

• list_databasesB
  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. It states the tool shows a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'accessible' entails. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

  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, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'accessible' means or how the list is formatted, which would be helpful for an agent. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return format, but it does not.

  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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for tools with no parameters. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

  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: '접근 가능한 모든 데이터베이스 목록을 보여줍니다' (shows a list of all accessible databases). It specifies the verb '보여줍니다' (shows) and the resource '데이터베이스 목록' (database list), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'get_table_schema'.

  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. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'list_tables' or 'query_table', 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.