Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mysql_describe_tableC
  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 states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, returns data in a particular format (e.g., JSON, table), or has any limitations like rate limits or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

  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 and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Get table structure and column information.' Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 (a read operation with 2 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., column types, constraints) or address potential behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool that retrieves structural data, more context on output format and usage constraints would be helpful to ensure correct invocation.

  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 (table and database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of table names or details on database defaults. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get table structure and column information'), which indicates it retrieves metadata about a database table. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mysql_list_databases and mysql_list_tables by focusing on detailed table structure rather than listing databases or tables. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mysql_query, which might also return structural information depending on the query.

  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 when to choose mysql_describe_table over mysql_query for structural information, or clarify its role relative to mysql_list_tables. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing database connection, which leaves usage context implied rather than stated.

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

• mysql_list_tablesB
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it shows system tables, pagination behavior, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

  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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention something about the return format (e.g., 'returns table names as strings') to be more complete.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'database' documented as optional with default behavior. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all tables in the database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mysql_list_databases (which lists databases rather than tables) or mysql_describe_table (which describes table structure).

  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 like mysql_list_databases or mysql_describe_table. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing considerations, or explicit exclusions. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• mysql_list_databasesB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, output format, or whether it includes system databases. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 ('List all available databases') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or constraints. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param details.

  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 'List all available databases' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('databases'), with 'all available' providing scope. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_list_tables (tables vs databases) and mysql_describe_table (describe vs list), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks the specific sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

  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 does not mention siblings like mysql_list_tables for listing tables within a database or mysql_query for querying data, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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

• mysql_queryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 specifies 'read-only' and mentions 'SELECT statements only,' which are useful constraints. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or result format, leaving gaps in 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('execute a read-only SQL query') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and constraints but is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, result structure, or error scenarios, which are important for a database query tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

  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%, with the input schema fully documenting the 'query' parameter as 'SQL query to execute (SELECT statements only).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it restates the same constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('execute a read-only SQL query') and resource ('MySQL database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mysql_describe_table or mysql_list_tables, which also involve database operations but for different purposes.

  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 read-only SQL queries, particularly SELECT statements, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mysql_list_tables for listing tables or mysql_describe_table for table structure. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.

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