Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• checkpoint_list_access_rulesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the API shape (each rule carries uid, name, object lists, action, lifecycle status) and the relationship to publish/install workflow. No contradictions.

  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 concise (two sentences) with no fluff. The first sentence provides the primary purpose, and the second adds relevant detail about the API shape. Front-loaded and efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the existence of an output schema (explaining return values), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It explains the shape of individual rules and the lifecycle status concept. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete picture for a list operation.

  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% for both parameters (layer and status), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds minor context about status being a lifecycle filter and the workflow, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 access rules in a given layer with optional lifecycle filtering. It uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'access rules', and distinguishes from sibling tools (add, publish, install) by being a read operation.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for listing, but provides no guidance on when to choose it over other tools or any prerequisites.

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

• checkpoint_install_policyA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds that this tool causes rules to start blocking traffic and requires human approval. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise operational context. Every sentence is necessary and no waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description fully explains the significance and context (compensating control, human approval), making it complete for agent understanding.

  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 already describes both parameters (layer, targets) with 100% coverage. The description uses 'named gateways' which aligns with the 'targets' parameter but adds no syntactic or semantic detail 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 uses a specific verb 'Push' and clearly identifies the resource ('published rules on a layer to the named gateways'). It also provides operational context about activating rules, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list' or 'publish'.

  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 when to use this tool: after publishing rules and with human-in-loop approval. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• checkpoint_add_access_ruleA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals that the rule is created as 'draft', not committed, lives only in the session, and surfaces for operator review. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Six lines, each sentence adds value. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 7 parameters and a human-gated workflow, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, usage context, and ties to sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

  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 parameters well. The description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description explicitly states 'Add a new access rule to the current session', specifying the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the draft lifecycle and referencing checkpoint_publish_session and checkpoint_install_policy.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'This is typically a human-gated step in a change workflow, reserved for network-policy changes', telling when to use it and implying it's not for automated direct commits. It also references the sibling tools for the follow-up steps.

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

• checkpoint_publish_sessionA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Adds value beyond annotations: describes transition to 'published' status, cross-session persistence, and what the tool does NOT do. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 concise sentences plus a brief clarification. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Complete for a zero-parameter tool: explains what happens, how it relates to sibling, and idempotency. Output schema exists but not needed in description.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so the description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

  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 uses specific verbs ('commit', 'publish') and resource ('drafted rules in current session'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'checkpoint_install_policy' by stating it does not enforce on gateways.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use (to commit drafted rules) and when not (enforcement requires checkpoint_install_policy). Also notes idempotency to guide calling without drafts.

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