Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_resourcesC
  2.6/5.0
  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 it 'List resources' but doesn't reveal if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, but it earns high marks for brevity.

  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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resources' entail, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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, with clear documentation for both parameters, including an enum for 'category.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'category' and 'resource_type' or providing examples. 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.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states the tool 'List resources from a specific category,' which provides a basic verb ('List') and resource target ('resources'), but it's vague about what 'resources' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_system_info' or 'view_config_node_values.' It's adequate for minimal understanding but lacks specificity.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_system_info' or 'view_config_node_values,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for listing by category but fails to provide context for selection among siblings.

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

• multi_move_clone_configurationC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions 'Multi-Move or Multi-Clone' but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., if 'move' deletes the original), potential side effects, error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to grasp quickly. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the 'move' and 'clone' options for clarity.

  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 firewall configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and what the tool returns (e.g., success status or error messages). For a mutation tool like this, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('config_paths', 'new_location', 'action') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining path formats or the implications of 'move' vs. 'clone'. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

  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 ('Multi-Move or Multi-Clone') and the resource ('configuration of the Palo Alto firewall'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_config_node_values' or 'list_resources', which might also involve configuration operations, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be used versus others.

  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 prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or existing configurations, or when to choose 'move' vs. 'clone' actions. Without this context, users might struggle to apply it correctly in different scenarios.

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

• view_config_node_valuesC
  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 'view,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  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 firewall configuration and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration node values' entail, how results are returned, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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, with the 'xpath' parameter documented as 'XPath to the configuration node.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid XPath formats or common use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('view') and target ('configuration node values for XPath on the Palo Alto firewall'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_system_info' or 'list_resources', which might also retrieve information from the firewall.

  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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or connectivity to the firewall, and doesn't mention any exclusions or preferred scenarios for usage.

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

• get_system_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  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 retrieves information but doesn't specify what type of system information (e.g., hardware status, software versions, network stats), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, the data format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any parameters, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.

  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 system information') and target resource ('from the Palo Alto firewall'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'view_config_node_values', which might also retrieve information from the same system.

  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 what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'view_config_node_values', nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for its use.

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