Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• request_quoteA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (public form) and the required environment variables, but does not describe side effects, return behavior, or what happens after submission. This is a moderate amount of detail for a simple request 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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and adds a necessary prerequisite, earning its place.

  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?

  The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what happens after submission or what the response indicates. It covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks post-condition details, making it incomplete for an agent relying solely on this 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?

  The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, and the description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The mention of PERFEX_URL and PERFEX_QUOTE_KEY refers to environment variables, not user-supplied 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 clearly states the specific action ('Envía una solicitud de presupuesto') and the resource ('estimate request' via public form). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_lead and create_ticket by being quote-specific.

  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 like create_lead or create_ticket. The description only mentions a prerequisite (PERFEX_URL and PERFEX_QUOTE_KEY) but does not explain the ideal use case or exclusions.

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

• create_ticketA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the use of a public endpoint and required environment variables/department, which is useful. With no annotations provided, it does not mention failure modes, idempotency, or response behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

  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, with two sentences covering purpose, endpoint, and requirements. No filler, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

  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?

  Covers the essentials—purpose, endpoint, requirements—but lacks information about response format, error handling, or expected outcomes after creation. Since there is no output schema, the description leaves a notable gap.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond emphasizing the department requirement and defaults already present in 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 clearly states the tool creates a support ticket in Perfex CRM via the public endpoint /forms/ticket. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lead and request_quote.

  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?

  It provides clear context for when to use the tool—creating a support ticket—and lists prerequisites (PERFEX_URL, department). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• create_leadA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the mechanism (web-to-lead), required configuration, and return value (success true/false). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple creation statement, though it does not elaborate on failure modes or side effects.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes requirements and return information. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 (10 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, mechanism, requirements, and return. It does not explain error handling or duplicate behavior, which could be useful, but is not critical for a basic create lead tool.

  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. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond mentioning the web-to-lead form, which hints at mapping but does not enrich semantics.

  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: 'Crea un lead (cliente potencial) en Perfex CRM vía el formulario web-to-lead.' This identifies the specific verb (crea), resource (lead en Perfex CRM), and method (web-to-lead). It distinguishes from siblings like create_ticket and request_quote.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool (when creating a lead in Perfex CRM) and mentions prerequisites (PERFEX_URL and PERFEX_FORM_KEY configurados). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is unambiguous.

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

• perfex_healthA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool verifies the URL responds, which implies a network call, but it does not disclose details such as timeout behavior, expected HTTP status, or authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple health check but not comprehensive.

  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 action ('Verifica que la URL de Perfex responde') and followed by the diagnostic use case. No wasted words.

  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 simple health-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and diagnostic context. It does not explain the return format, but that is acceptable given the low complexity and the clear indication that it checks accessibility.

  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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

  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 'Verifica que la URL de Perfex responde' clearly specifies a health-check verb (verifica) and resource (the Perfex URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create leads, tickets, or quotes. The title 'Comprobar conexión con Perfex CRM' reinforces the purpose.

  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 explicitly states it is 'Útil para diagnosticar si el CRM está accesible', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are fundamentally different actions (create/request), so the decision context is clear.

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