Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description covers return type (success or error message) and SMTP config fallback behavior. However, it does not disclose rate limits, size constraints, or whether sending is synchronous, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is moderately concise but includes a block listing SMTP config subfields, which adds verbosity. It is structured clearly but could be tighter without losing information.

  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 description covers parameters, return value, and SMTP config behavior, but lacks details on error conditions, asynchronous behavior, or constraints like attachment support. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for robust use.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides detailed explanation for each parameter, including is_html default, smtp_config structure, and fallback to environment variables. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 'Send a simple email' and lists all parameters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like send_custom_email or test_smtp_connection, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this tool.

  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. The description implies it is for simple emails but does not explicitly state scenarios or compare with siblings.

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

• Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided. The description adds useful context: the tool falls back to environment variables if smtp_config is not provided, and returns a connection test result or error. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or if the test is read-only, which is important for a test operation.

  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 well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. It is concise enough but could be slightly shortened by removing the docstring format. Still, 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?

  The tool has an output schema (not detailed), but the description's return statement is vague ('Connection test result or error message'). Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools, the description is adequate but leaves room for more specifics about the return structure.

  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 description coverage is 0% for the sole parameter 'smtp_config'. The description compensates by listing the expected nested fields (host, port, secure, etc.) and explaining the fallback behavior, which adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Test SMTP connection' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings 'send_custom_email' and 'send_simple_email' which focus on sending emails, not testing connections.

  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 testing SMTP connectivity, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like sending emails. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (success or error message) and elaborates on parameters, but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond the act of sending. Adequate but not thorough.

  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 well-structured with a concise purpose sentence followed by detailed Args and Returns sections. However, it is somewhat verbose for the parameter details; could be more terse while maintaining completeness. Barely loses a point for efficiency.

  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 nested objects, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (implied), the description provides thorough coverage of all parameter structures, optionality, and return behavior. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does excellently. It details the email object with nested fields (to, cc, bcc, subject, text, html, attachments with subfields) and smtp_config (host, port, secure, username, password, from_email), adding meaning like 'preferred' and 'auto-derived' that the schema lacks.

  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 'Send a custom email with full configuration options,' which precisely specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (send_simple_email, test_smtp_connection) by emphasizing 'full configuration' and 'custom,' implying this tool is for advanced scenarios.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for complex email needs via 'full configuration,' but it does not mention when-not-to-use or directly compare to send_simple_email. Slight gap in intentionality.

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