Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_range_dataC
  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 'formatting options' but does not cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., data format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external data.

  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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get data from a specific range') and adds a relevant detail ('with formatting options'). There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the tool's scope or limitations.

  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 interacting with a spreadsheet API, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error cases), output format, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent use.

  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, providing clear details for all three parameters, including enums for 'value_render_option'. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'formatting options', which aligns with the schema but does not elaborate beyond it. 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Get data') and resource ('from a specific range'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_sheet_metadata' or 'list_sheets' that handle metadata or listing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'read_sheet_data' or 'search_sheet_data', which might also involve reading data, making it slightly less specific than 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 like 'read_sheet_data' or 'search_sheet_data'. It mentions 'formatting options' but does not specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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

• get_sheet_metadataC
  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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what metadata fields are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple metadata retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, how to interpret results, or provide context about the Google Spreadsheet ecosystem. Given the complexity of spreadsheet metadata and lack of structured documentation, more guidance 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required 'spreadsheet_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata about a Google Spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sheets' or 'read_sheet_data' which might also retrieve spreadsheet information, leaving some ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this metadata retrieval.

  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_sheets' or 'read_sheet_data'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, 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.

• list_sheetsC
  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 action but doesn't describe what 'list' entails—such as whether it returns metadata, names only, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of sheet names, objects with metadata), error handling, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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%, so the input schema already documents the single parameter 'spreadsheet_id' with its type and description. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.

  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 ('List all sheets/tabs') and resource ('in a Google Spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling tools like 'get_sheet_metadata' or 'read_sheet_data', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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_sheet_metadata' or 'search_sheet_data'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, 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.

• read_sheet_dataC
  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 reads data but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with external resources like Google Sheets.

  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 and parameters. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary details, 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 interacting with Google Sheets and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, or output details, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.

  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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the parameters (spreadsheet ID and range), without providing additional context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 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 action ('Read data from') and resource ('a Google Sheet'), specifying the required inputs (spreadsheet ID and range). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sheet_metadata' by focusing on data extraction, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_range_data' or 'search_sheet_data', which may have overlapping functionality.

  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_range_data' or 'search_sheet_data'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.

• search_sheet_dataC
  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 but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., matches, positions), or any constraints like rate limits or permissions needed, which are critical for a search tool.

  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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

  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 search operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the search returns (e.g., cell references, values), how matches are handled, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

  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 no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 ('Search') and resource ('specific data in a Google Sheet'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_data' or 'read_sheet_data', which might also retrieve data, so it's not fully distinctive.

  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_range_data' or 'read_sheet_data'. It lacks context on scenarios where searching is preferred over direct retrieval, such as when the exact location of data is unknown, leaving usage unclear.

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