Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_pull_requestC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'proper authentication handling' which hints at auth requirements, but doesn't specify what those requirements are, whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a tool that creates GitHub pull requests (a significant write operation), this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

  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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could potentially be more structured with additional context about the tool's role in the workflow.

  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?

  For a tool that creates GitHub pull requests (a significant mutating operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, authentication specifics, or how it relates to sibling tools. The mention of 'proper authentication handling' is insufficient given the complexity of the operation.

  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, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

  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 ('create') and resource ('GitHub pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'merge_pull_request' or explain how it fits within the broader git workflow context.

  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 mentions 'proper authentication handling' which implies some context about authentication requirements, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'complete_git_workflow' or 'git_commit_and_push'. There's no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• git_commit_and_pushC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions the action ('commit and push') but fails to describe critical traits such as permission requirements, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('commit staged changes and push to remote repository') 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.

  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 mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  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 ('commit and push') and resource ('staged changes to remote repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'complete_git_workflow' or 'create_pull_request', which might handle similar git operations.

  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 'complete_git_workflow' or 'create_pull_request'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., staged changes), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

• merge_pull_requestC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While 'Merge' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, if it's reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

  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 maximally concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear, singular function.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after merging, what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The combination of being a write operation with multiple parameters and no structured safety information requires more descriptive context than provided.

  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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

  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 'Merge a GitHub pull request' clearly states the verb ('Merge') and resource ('GitHub pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'complete_git_workflow' or 'create_pull_request' - it's clear what it does but not how it's distinct from related operations.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like having a pull request ready to merge), when not to use it (e.g., if there are merge conflicts), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'complete_git_workflow' which might encompass merging as part of a larger workflow.

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

• complete_git_workflowA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the sequence of actions (commit, push, create PR, optionally merge) but lacks details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or what happens in edge cases (e.g., merge conflicts). This is inadequate for a complex, multi-step tool with potential side effects.

  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 the core purpose ('Execute complete Git workflow') and lists key actions without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, 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.

  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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multi-step operations), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, dependencies, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

  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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool's overall workflow, which doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 purpose with specific verbs (execute, commit, push, create, merge) and resources (Git workflow, PR). It distinguishes from sibling tools by combining multiple operations (commit, push, create PR, merge) that are handled separately by siblings like create_pull_request, git_commit_and_push, and merge_pull_request.

  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 implies usage context by mentioning 'complete Git workflow' and 'optionally merge,' suggesting it's for end-to-end operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., for batch workflows vs. individual steps), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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