Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• render_erdB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the three output files and the write action, but does not mention side effects like overwrite behavior or error handling. The mutation is clear, but additional details would improve transparency.

  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 sentence that conveys key information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every part adds value. Could be slightly more structured by listing outputs separately, but overall concise.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It focuses on the output files but fails to explain how to specify the input schema (source_path, source_text, source_type) or expected return values, leaving significant gaps.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is only 25% (only out_path described). The description does not explain other parameters (source_path, source_text, source_type) nor the enum options, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

  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 'Generate a Mermaid ERD' and the resource 'from a schema', and specifies the write-to-disk action. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the file output side effect, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'schema_to_erd' which might just return text.

  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 context by noting the output is for embedding without copy-paste, implying a specific use case. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like siblings.

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

• workflow_to_diagramB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the output format but does not mention side effects, error handling, input size limits, or permissions needed. With no annotations, more detail on behavioral traits (e.g., pure conversion, no side effects) would improve 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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and covers essential input/output without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value well but omits explanation of source_path vs source_text and direction. It is slightly incomplete given the parameter count, though the tool's simplicity partially mitigates this.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the tool accepts DSL or JSON but does not map these to parameters (source_text vs source_path, source_type). Direction and source_path are not explained. The description adds partial meaning but insufficiently clarifies all four 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 it converts a workflow spec into a Mermaid flowchart and specifies input formats (DSL or JSON) and output (Mermaid source with fenced block). It distinguishes from sibling tools through specific input/output details, though explicit differentiation from 'render_workflow' is missing.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., render_workflow) or when not to use it. The description lacks context about prerequisites or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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

• render_workflowA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that multiple files (.mmd, .md, .html) are written to disk, but does not detail side effects (e.g., overwriting), idempotency, or permission requirements.

  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 sentence that conveys essential information without fluff. It could be improved by adding a brief note on parameter usage, but it is appropriately sized.

  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 5 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how source parameters interact, the purpose of direction, or what the generated .md and .html files contain.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 20%, yet the description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain direction, source_path, source_text, or source_type, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

  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 verb (generate and write) and resource (Mermaid flowchart from workflow spec). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool render_erd by noting it is for workflows/pipelines.

  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 provides a clear sibling reference ('Same as render_erd but for workflows/pipelines'), indicating when to use this tool vs an alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance.

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

• schema_to_erdA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only (converts input to output) and details the output format. It does not cover error handling or limitations, but for a simple conversion tool, the level of disclosure is adequate.

  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, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers input options and output format. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, input formats, and output. Missing details like behavior when both source_path and source_text are provided, or error handling for invalid schemas, but overall it's sufficient for typical usage.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, setting baseline to 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between source_path and source_text as alternative inputs, and listing the supported schema formats, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

  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 converts a database schema to a Mermaid erDiagram, with specific input formats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like render_erd, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage (when you have a schema and need an ERD diagram) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like render_erd or drift_check, and no when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

• drift_checkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes output as reporting added/removed tables/columns/relations. Does not specify output format or permissions, but implies read-only behavior. Lacks explicit side-effect disclosure (safe).

  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: first defines functionality and inputs, second gives usage advice. No redundant words, highly efficient.

  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?

  Covers input types, output type (additions/removals), and usage scenario. Lacks output format details and error handling, but sufficient for its simplicity.

  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 covers 67% of params with descriptions. Description adds context for doc_path and schema_path (file containing diagram vs schema source). Schema_type enum values not described, but enum limits choices. Adequate but not enhanced.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool checks ERD drift between a doc and current schema, specifying file types (.mmd, .md with mermaid) and reporting additions/removals. Distinguishes from sibling tools (render, convert) by focusing on verification.

  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?

  Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this in CI or before shipping docs.' Implicitly guides away from render/convert tasks. Could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., for non-ERD content).

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