Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create-userC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication, idempotency details, or side effects beyond basic creation. 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?

  The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately minimal and front-loaded.

  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 simple create operation with a clear schema and annotations, the description is adequate but lacks usage guidance and contextual details (like duplicate handling or response format). Since there is no output schema, return behavior isn't described, but this is a minor gap.

  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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention any of the four required parameters. Names like 'email' and 'phone' are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 uses a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('user') with location ('in the database'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'create-random-user', so it doesn't fully distinguish itself, earning a 4.

  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 instead of the sibling 'create-random-user'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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

• create-random-userA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already disclose that the tool is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-idempotent. The description adds minimal context by saying 'fake data', implying non-production use, but does not explain side effects, return values, or replication differences across calls.

  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 core action. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning its place fully.

  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 (no params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations covering safety traits, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the return format or that the user is generated in-memory, but these are not critical gaps for such a simple tool.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and the 'random' nature suggests no input customization, which is adequately covered.

  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's function: creating a random user with fake data. The verb 'create' identifies the action, and 'random user' with 'fake data' distinguishes it from creating a specific user, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for generating test or placeholder data, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling tool 'create-user'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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