Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_classA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains what the tool returns but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or performance traits. The tool is inherently read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

  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, with a brief front-loaded statement of purpose followed by a clear Arguments block. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and overall purpose. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or performance, which would be helpful given no annotations.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it provides concrete examples for class_name, explains file_path as an optional scope prefix, and clarifies include_tests defaults. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 returns a complete reference card of a class's public members, including methods, properties, fields, and events. It distinguishes from siblings like get_signature (which likely targets a single member) by emphasizing the full class overview.

  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 mentions it 'replaces reading the entire source file,' implying a use case for quick class overview, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_signature or specify when not to use this tool.

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

• get_signatureA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a read-only lookup but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if member not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

  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 concise: a one-line purpose, a usage recommendation, and a well-structured args list. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is efficient and free of fluff.

  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 has 3 parameters and an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the essential context: arguments, usage guidance, and scope (FQN examples). It lacks details on error states but is otherwise complete for a lookup tool.

  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?

  The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description compensates by providing detailed explanations for all three parameters: 'name' (with examples), 'file_path' (optional path prefix), and 'include_tests' (default false). This adds significant 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's purpose: 'Look up the exact signature of an API member by name or FQN.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_class' (likely for class definitions) and 'search' (general search).

  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 usage context: 'Use when you need exact parameter types, return types, or method signatures without reading the full source file.' While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and the sibling tools list helps.

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

• reindexA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: incremental, uses file modification times, only touches changed files. However, it omits details like whether the operation is idempotent, locks the index, or has any 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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

  Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides adequate context for a mutation tool. It explains the mechanism and efficiency, but could briefly mention the output format or return value.

  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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter info; it is sufficient as is.

  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 incrementally updates the index by re-parsing only changed, new, or deleted files. It uses a specific verb ('Incrementally update') and resource ('index'), distinguishing it from sibling read-only tools like get_class and search.

  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 provides context on when to use (fast incremental updates based on file modification times) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like a full reindex. No preconditions are listed.

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

• get_statsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the kind of data returned but does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, 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 two sentences long, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy.

  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 presence of an output schema (not shown but flagged), the description does not need to detail return format. It provides a complete overview of what the tool does, and the tool's simplicity (no params, no side effects) means nothing is missing.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no param-specific info 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 uses specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('quick overview'), and lists the specific metrics returned (file count, record counts by type, namespace breakdown). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_class and get_signature which are more specific.

  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 as a top-level summary tool, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it versus alternatives. The sibling tools provide context, but no exclusions are mentioned.

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

• searchA
  4.4/5.0
  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 mentions 'Returns ranked results with signatures,' which adds behavioral context, but does not disclose performance, error handling, or what happens with empty results. It is adequate but not rich.

  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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then lists what is found, and uses a clear bullet-like format for parameters. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input parameters, their defaults, and the nature of the output (ranked results with signatures). No further information seems necessary for correct invocation.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter beyond the schema. For example, 'file_path: Optional path prefix or exact file to scope results (e.g. 'src/services/' or 'src/services/foo.ts')' adds valuable context. All five parameters are clearly described.

  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: 'Search the indexed API by keyword.' It lists specific resources found (classes, methods, properties, fields, events) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_class and get_signature, which focus on specific lookups.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (keyword search) and details optional filters (n_results, member_type, file_path, include_tests). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on search vs. direct retrieval, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives.

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