Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• radius_source_readA
  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 full burden. It states 'reads' but does not disclose limitations like file size, encoding, or error behavior for missing paths. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Reads the full content'), and contains zero superfluous words. Every part is necessary.

  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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and provides examples. Could mention return format or error cases, but overall sufficient.

  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 schema already describes the 'path' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'pkg/recipes/engine/engine.go'), providing extra meaning beyond 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 reads a single file from the radius-project/radius repo by its path relative to the root, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like radius_source_search (search) and radius_source_sync (sync).

  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 when to use (need file content) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context but are not referenced in the description itself.

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

• radius_source_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a shallow clone is made if no local checkout exists, and that first use may be slow. This sets appropriate expectations for the agent.

  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-loads the core purpose, and adds essential context (clone behavior, use case) without redundancy or 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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the scope, setup behavior, and intended use cases. It could mention pagination or result format, but overall is sufficient.

  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, meaning each parameter is already documented. The description does not add new semantic details for parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 specifies a clear verb 'search' and resource 'Radius source repo', listing specific directories covered. It distinguishes from sibling tools (radius_source_read, radius_source_sync, radius_docs_sync) by focusing on full-text search over source code and docs.

  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 when to use the tool: 'for implementation details, resource-provider internals, or design rationale that isn't covered in the published docs.' It also mentions the initial clone delay, but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives.

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

• radius_docs_syncA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions pulling changes into cache, implying mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network usage, cache overwrite behavior, error handling). 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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and condition. Highly efficient.

  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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), description fully covers purpose, usage, and caching behavior. No missing context for agent to invoke correctly.

  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?

  No parameters exist, schema coverage 100%. Description adds no param info, which is expected. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tool.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Pulls' and resource 'local Radius documentation cache' from the specific GitHub repo. Distinguishes from sibling tools like radius_source_sync by specifying docs repo. Provides condition for use.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to call ('if answers seem stale') and when not to ('otherwise the cache is reused as-is'), providing clear guidance.

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

• radius_source_syncA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the no-op behavior under specific conditions and indicates it updates a local cache. While it could mention potential wait time or resource usage, the current disclosure is adequate for a simple cache refresh operation.

  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 that front-load the main action ('Pulls the latest changes...') and then provide the key conditional. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

  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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core behavior and the no-op condition. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. Slight room for improvement by noting what happens after sync (e.g., cache state).

  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, and the input schema is empty. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

  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 refreshes the local cache by pulling latest changes from the radius-project/radius repository. The title reinforces this as 'Refresh the local Radius source cache'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (radius_source_search, radius_source_read, radius_docs_sync) which are for searching, reading, or syncing docs, respectively.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use (to refresh cache) and when not (when external checkout configured via RADIUS_REPO_PATH or sibling radius/ directory). The no-op condition is clearly described, helping the agent decide if calling this tool is appropriate.

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