Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• executeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'guarded' and 'when writes are explicitly enabled', hinting at safety mechanisms, but does not explain what 'guarded' entails, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or likely side effects. For a mutating tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.

  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 entire description is one sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose in a compact, front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place, even if the content is thin.

  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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and a write side-effect, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, error behavior, or how to use params/database. The 'guarded' and 'enabled' context helps but is insufficient for safe invocation of a DML tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides zero information about the parameters (sql, params, database). The agent cannot learn what 'params' means (e.g., bind parameters) or how 'database' is used, leaving the tool's invocation underspecified.

  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 executes a DML statement, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'query' tool (reads). The qualifiers 'guarded' and 'when writes are explicitly enabled' add context, though 'guarded' is somewhat vague. It identifies the action and resource sufficiently.

  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 this is for write operations ('DML statement') and is conditioned on writes being enabled, but it does not explicitly contrast with 'query' or state when NOT to use it. The context is clear enough for a user already familiar with the tool set, but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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

• describe_tableB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return of metadata and a vague scope ('one configured database'), without addressing read-only status, error handling, or permissions. The phrase is ambiguous and does not clarify the role of the optional database parameter.

  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, succinct and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler.

  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?

  While the output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description leaves ambiguity about the database scope and parameter usage. It is marginally adequate but lacks important context for an agent to invoke it confidently.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Parameter documentation coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the `table` and `database` parameters. It fails to mention required/optional status, formats, or defaults, which the schema alone must convey.

  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 states 'Return column metadata for a table', clearly identifying a specific verb (return) and resource (column metadata). The scope 'in one configured database' distinguishes this from sibling tools that list databases or perform data operations.

  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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• exportA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'The destination session and acting identity come from process-level environment variables, never from model-supplied tool arguments.' This goes beyond the generic action and warns against passing identity arguments. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing datasets.

  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?

  Two sentences, no redundant information. The first states the action, the second adds an essential behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  The description is sufficient for a simple tool but not for one with 4 undocumented parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain optional parameters, database usage, or any prerequisites. The behavioral note is valuable but does not compensate for missing parameter guidance.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanatory detail for any of the four parameters (sql, params, database, dataset_name). It only hints that sql is a SELECT query, but params and database are entirely unexplained. This is a major gap for tool invocation.

  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 a specific action: 'Stream a SELECT to Parquet and register it as a Sandbox Dataset.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query/execute (which run queries) and list_databases/describe_table (which inspect metadata).

  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 implies the tool's use case: exporting query results to a persistent dataset. It clearly differentiates from siblings by its purpose, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

• queryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key safety traits: read-only (no mutation) and bounded (limited results). This is valuable context, though it doesn't specify default limits or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple query 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. 'Bounded' and 'read-only' add essential context, and the export alternative is stated efficiently. No wasted words.

  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 output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it doesn't clarify how 'bounded' maps to the limit parameter or what the database parameter does, leaving some ambiguity. It provides a basic but incomplete picture for a 4-parameter tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain the sql, limit, params, or database parameters, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond type names. This is a major gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

  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 states the tool runs a bounded read-only SELECT, clearly indicating a query operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying read-only (not execute) and bounded (not export for bulk pulls), making the purpose unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use export for bulk pulls,' providing a concrete alternative for a specific scenario. The 'read-only' qualifier implies it's not for writes, giving clear when/when-not guidance relative to sibling tools.

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

• list_databasesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a meaningful security guarantee that DSNs and credentials are not exposed, and 'list' implies a read-only action. However, it does not explicitly discuss side effects or authentication requirements, though these are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only listing.

  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 and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

  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, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the scope and a key security constraint, though it could have added a hint about use cases or ordering, but these are not essential.

  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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the output is limited to database ids, which adds semantic value beyond the empty 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 lists configured database ids, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_table, query, execute, and export, which target tables or data operations rather than database enumeration.

  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 the tool is used to enumerate available database ids, which is a natural first step before using other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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