Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_memoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Update a specific memo by ID', which indicates mutation but does not disclose idempotence, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether it overwrites or merges fields. The minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though additional detail could be structured without losing efficiency.

  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 has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as return value, update semantics (full replacement vs partial), and error conditions, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

  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% (both parameters have clear descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but it does not detract either.

  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 'Update' and the resource 'memo' with identification by ID. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like create_memo (which creates) and get_memo (which reads), but the verb itself implies modification.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_memo or get_memo. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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

• create_memoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description only states creation, lacking details on side effects, required permissions, or what happens on invocation. The schema supplements partially but does not cover behavioral implications.

  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?

  Ultra-concise: one sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action. Efficient for an agent to parse.

  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?

  With 2 simple params and no output schema, the description is brief. It does not specify return value (e.g., created memo ID or object), which could aid usability. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% (all params described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Create a new memo' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get, search, update) by the verb 'create', which is distinct enough.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_memo. The description does not provide when-not or alternative contexts.

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

• get_memoB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not mention idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if memo not found), or whether the tool is read-only. The description is too brief to disclose key behavioral traits.

  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?

  Single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loads the action and resource.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on output or error handling. With no output schema, some return value description would improve completeness.

  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% and the parameter 'name' is already described with format 'memos/{id}'. The description adds 'by ID' but provides no additional semantics 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 explicitly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific memo by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (create, search, update) which have different verbs or scopes.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_memo). It assumes the agent already has the ID, but does not explain prerequisites or cases where search might be more appropriate.

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

• search_memoB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it 'searches for memos using keywords' without detailing return format, match behavior (fuzzy/exact), case sensitivity, pagination, or sorting. The agent has minimal insight into the tool's 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 with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficiently scannable for an AI agent.

  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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return value structure or behavior, which a simple tool should provide to ensure correct usage.

  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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description: it merely repeats the parameter purpose. No extra context or constraints are provided.

  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 action ('Search for memos') and the method ('using keywords'), distinguishing it from sibling tools create_memo, get_memo, and update_memo. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

  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. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it differentiate from get_memo (which retrieves by ID) or other search methods. This lack of context may lead to incorrect tool selection.

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