Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_c4_diagram_toolA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it generates source code from explicitly defined elements, relationships, and boundaries. However, it does not mention any side effects, mutation, or limitations (e.g., no image rendering), which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args list with parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded for quick understanding.

  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 description covers purpose, parameters, and output format adequately. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. It could elaborate on diagram type semantics, but given sibling tools may cover that, the description is sufficiently complete for a creation 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and structure (e.g., 'elements: List of C4 elements, each with: type, alias, label, description, technology'). This provides significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

  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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Create a C4 architecture diagram from structured data.' It specifies the output (Mermaid or PlantUML source code) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_c4_reference_tool' and 'scan_codebase_tool' by focusing on creation.

  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 for usage (when you have structured C4 data) and lists supported diagram types. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to choose between output formats or diagram types, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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

• get_c4_reference_toolA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns documentation (Markdown), describes the single parameter, and lists possible values. While it omits mentioning that it is read-only or non-destructive, the nature of a reference lookup implies safety, and the output schema existence adds 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 concise at four sentences, with the purpose stated in the first line. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the parameter. 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), presence of an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It explains the return format, parameter options, and usage context, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explicitly documents the parameter 'topic' with its allowed values (elements, diagrams, relationships, all). This adds meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of formal descriptions. The explanation of the parameter's purpose is clear.

  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 C4 model reference documentation, specifying content (element types, diagram types, relationship conventions) and purpose (to aid in structuring create_c4_diagram inputs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_c4_diagram, scan_codebase) by being a reference lookup.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before using create_c4_diagram to understand available elements. It provides context by explaining the return format (Markdown documentation) and parameter options, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

• scan_codebase_toolA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 transparently discloses that the tool returns a JSON object with structure information and does not interpret code. However, it omits details about potential errors, performance implications, or edge cases like non-existent paths.

  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, using a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, a bullet list of return contents, and explicit parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use parameters, and how it fits with sibling tools. No obvious gaps remain.

  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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that 'project_path' is an absolute or relative path and that 'max_depth' defaults to 3. The schema itself has titles but no descriptions, so the description compensates effectively for the 0% schema description coverage.

  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 the specific verb 'scan' and resource 'project directory', clearly stating it returns a structural overview. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_c4_diagram_tool' and 'get_c4_reference_tool', which focus on diagram generation rather than codebase scanning.

  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 provides usage guidance: 'use this as a starting point for analysis, then read specific files to understand the architecture.' It also states what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT interpret code'), helping the agent choose appropriate follow-up actions.

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