Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ParecodeExpandA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided; description fully covers behaviors: silent clamping of out-of-range lines, returned lineRange reflects actual slice, reports estimatedTokens, and read-only nature.

  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?

  Concise two-sentence description that is front-loaded with purpose and efficiently covers all key aspects without 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?

  No output schema, but description mentions returned values (lineRange, estimatedTokens) and behavior. Could be slightly more detailed on return structure, but sufficient given simplicity.

  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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds context above schema by explaining how parameters relate to search matches and padding behavior, though some parameter details are already clear from 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 specific line range of a file and positions it as a follow-up to ParecodeSearch, distinguishing it from siblings like ParecodeEdit and full-file reads.

  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 specifies when to use (as follow-up to ParecodeSearch) and when not (instead of full-file Read), and mentions alternative ParecodeEdit for changes.

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

• ParecodeEditA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: per-file atomicity, conflict detection, error statuses (snippet_mismatch, fuzzy_match_failed), anchor relocation, fuzzy matching tolerance, and indentation adoption. It covers safety and failure modes comprehensively.

  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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is long. Every sentence adds value, though some could be more succinct. Overall well-structured but slightly verbose for the amount of information.

  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's complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and error handling. No gaps identified.

  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?

  Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining the trade-offs between line-range and string-patch ops, the details of expect anchor behavior, fuzzy matching nuances, and per-file atomicity. It provides context that the schema alone does not.

  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 applies many edits across many files, identifies itself as the edit counterpart to ParecodeSearch/ParecodeExpand, and lists specific use cases (2+ edits to one file, edits across files, one logical revision). This distinguishes it from siblings and provides a clear purpose.

  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 gives when to prefer this tool over alternatives (native Edit/MultiEdit) and provides detailed guidance on choosing between line-range ops and string-patch ops, including when to use each and the behavior of expect anchors and fuzzy matching.

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

• ParecodeSearchA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behaviors: read-only operation, estimatedTokens for budgeting, per-file content truncation with omittedLineRanges, deduplication via 'reference' placeholders, warning about pattern_directory_collision, and dependency on ripgrep. This fully covers what an agent needs to know.

  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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose and alternatives. Every sentence provides value, but it is relatively long; slight reduction could improve conciseness without losing essential information.

  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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers behavior, output structure (estimatedTokens, omittedLineRanges, reference placeholders), error warnings, dependencies, and alternatives. Compensates well for the lack of output schema.

  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?

  Although the input schema has 100% coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains pattern array for parallel flow tracing, contextLines also controls window-merge threshold, mode 'locate' for lean results, and relatedSymbols scans for specific symbol patterns. This greatly aids correct invocation.

  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 searches the codebase with ripgrep and returns matches with context in one call. It explicitly distinguishes from alternatives like Grep/Glob-then-Read, raw rg/grep, and re-reading files, using specific verbs like 'Search' and 'use instead of'.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to use alternatives: ParecodeExpand for widening matches, ParecodeEdit for code changes, and codegraph_explore for broad questions. Also explains the 'locate' mode for lean searches and mentions 'doctor' for troubleshooting missing ripgrep.

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