Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• health_reportB
  3.2/5.0
  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 only says 'Generate structured health reports' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

  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 with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to scan.

  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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not specify what a health report contains, how it is structured, or any edge-case behavior. The presence of sibling tools and moderate parameter count (4) calls for more explanatory content.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it merely echoes the 'specific period' concept already covered by start_date and end_date descriptions. It does not explain report_type enum semantics or include_metrics default behavior.

  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 states a specific action ('Generate') and resource ('structured health reports') with a scope ('for a specific period'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like health_query or health_schema beyond the word 'report'.

  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?

  Usage context is implied by the description: it generates reports for a period. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any alternative or exclusion criteria.

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

• health_queryA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Supports SELECT queries only', which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it does not mention output format variations (beyond schema), potential performance/limits, or error behavior, leaving some 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 sentence, immediately stating the action and the key restriction. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

  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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it specifies the action, the data domain, and the central limitation. The output format defaults are in the schema, and the lack of an output schema means return details are not strictly necessary. It is not overly complex, and the description covers the essential context.

  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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both query and format, so the bar is lowered. The description adds the Apple Health data context and the SELECT-only restriction, but these are already partially inferred from the schema. It does not provide deeper semantic 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?

  The description clearly states the tool executes SQL queries on Apple Health data, with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource. The additional 'Supports SELECT queries only' clarifies scope and distinguishes it from health_report (pre-built reports) and health_schema (schema introspection).

  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 provides the constraint that only SELECT queries are allowed, which implicitly says not to use it for writes, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like health_report or health_schema, nor does it describe when to prefer this tool over siblings. It gives a minor usage hint but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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

• health_schemaA
  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 carries the burden. It indicates a read-only, informational operation ('Get information'), which is consistent with a schema tool. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details such as data source, freshness, or access restrictions beyond the basic read-only implication.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get information') and immediately specifies the resource and purpose. Every phrase adds value with no 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?

  For a simple, parameterless tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies what the tool returns (table structures and sample data) and why it is useful (writing SQL queries). Without an output schema, this baseline description suffices.

  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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this scores 4.

  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: 'Get information about available health data tables, their structure, and sample data.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource, and the context of sibling tools (health_query, health_report) makes it distinct as the metadata/schema exploration tool.

  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 before writing SQL queries ('to help write SQL queries'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus health_query or health_report, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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