Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explain_specB
  3.4/5.0
  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 a read-only action ('Return the full field-level spec'), but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether data is fetched from a source, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Acceptable but minimal.

  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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the essential purpose. It is very concise, though it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from usage hint.

  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?

  With no output schema and two parameters (one undocumented), the description does not explain what the returned 'field-level spec' contains or how the 'specDir' parameter affects the result. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly interpret the response.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Only 50% of parameters are described in the schema (entity has a description; specDir does not). The description adds no parameter details beyond mentioning 'one entity', so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'specDir' parameter.

  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 it returns the full field-level spec for one entity, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('spec'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_specs' (which lists specs) and 'check_drift' (which checks for changes).

  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 before writing code ('so you know exactly what to implement before writing code'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_specs' or 'check_drift', nor does it mention any conditions or restrictions.

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

• check_driftA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It describes a read-only comparison but doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, or side effects. Insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines action and scope, second gives usage timing. Efficient 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?

  The description covers basic purpose and usage timing but omits return format, error conditions, and behavioral details (e.g., what happens when no drift is found). For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more completeness is needed.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't document the undocumented specDir parameter. No value added over 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 compares spec against TypeScript source and reports drift, listing specific types of mismatches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_spec and list_specs.

  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?

  Explicitly says to run before committing or after editing a spec-controlled type, providing clear usage context. No mention of when not to use, but siblings are unrelated, so no need for alternatives.

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

• list_specsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output (list of specs with symbols) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It is 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and providing usage context. No fluff, front-loaded with key 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?

  Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It only says 'list... and the source symbol,' leaving ambiguity about structure. For a tool intended as a first step, more detail on output would help.

  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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'override the spec directory (relative to the project root)' adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter description. Thus, it does not improve semantic clarity.

  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 what the tool does: it lists every entity spec and the source symbol it governs. It also differentiates from siblings (check_drift, explain_spec) by indicating this is a discovery tool to be called first.

  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 says 'Call this first to see which types are spec-controlled,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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