Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• git_commitA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose important behaviors: it validates staged changes, formats the message, and creates the commit. However, it omits other relevant traits such as failure modes, commit hooks, or repository configuration needs, so it provides only partial transparency.

  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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail and every sentence adds value, even though 'creates the commit' appears twice.

  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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite, but does not explain return values or broader context like repo_path usage. Still, the schema comprehensively documents parameters, so the description is reasonably 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not elaborate on how parameters like 'scope' or 'breaking' are used.

  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: 'Create a git commit following the emoji-commit convention.' It also names the resource (git commit) and differentiates from sibling tools that only format/validate/suggest messages by emphasizing the creation step: 'creates the commit.'

  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 gives clear context by noting the prerequisite of staged changes ('Validates staged changes exist') and the workflow (format then create). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like git_format_message or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.

• git_format_messageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explicitly states the tool 'returns a properly formatted message,' which implies a pure, side-effect-free operation and no repository mutation. This is adequate for a formatter, though it does not explicitly declare read-only status or error behavior.

  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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and output without fluff. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition of schema details.

  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 pure formatting function, the description covers input ('commit parameters') and output ('properly formatted message with emoji'). Since there is no output schema, this return-value description is sufficient. It omits deep format details, but schema and the convention named provide enough context.

  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% coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the generic phrase 'commit parameters,' making the baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool 'Format a commit message according to the git-emoji-commit convention' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it 'returns a properly formatted message with emoji.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_validate_message, git_suggest_type, and git_commit.

  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 as a formatter for commit messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name siblings or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the role from the tool name and context.

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

• git_suggest_typeA
  4/5.0
  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 that it returns a suggested type and reasoning, and 'analyze' implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any prerequisites like an initialized repository or existing staged changes. This leaves some behavioral traits undisclosed.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return value. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return value. It could mention that staged changes must exist or that the tool works only in a git repository, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

  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% coverage for the single optional parameter repo_path, so the description doesn't need to add param details. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to.

  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: analyzing staged git changes and suggesting a commit type. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'staged git changes' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings (format, validate, commit) by focusing on type suggestion.

  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 gives clear context: use when you have staged changes and need a commit type suggestion. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct from sibling tools, and the usage scenario is obvious.

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

• git_validate_messageA
  4/5.0
  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. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns validation results with any issues or warnings') but does not detail the result structure, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal but not misleading.

  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, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the result summary. Every word 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?

  For a simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return value. It could mention usage against sibling tools or provide an example result, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently 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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, where the 'message' parameter is described as 'The commit message to validate'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the specific action ('Validate') and the resource ('a commit message against the git-emoji-commit convention'). This distinguishes it from siblings like git_format_message, git_suggest_type, and git_commit.

  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 by specifying the exact convention being validated, making it evident this tool is used for checking commit messages before committing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.