Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_notesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description only states 'read-only' but does not disclose behavioral traits like required authentication, rate limits, or consequences of the search. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, yet it is minimal.

  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 very concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded key information. Every word earns its place.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, hybrid search, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks details on result format, pagination, mode semantics, and relationship to indexing status.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is only 14% (one parameter documented). The description does not add meaning to the 7 parameters, such as explaining folder_exclude, folder_include, or the effect of include_archived. The mode enum is not elaborated.

  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 is a read-only hybrid semantic/keyword search over the Obsidian vault, returning file-level results with matched sections. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (reading a specific note) and index_vault (indexing).

  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, when not to use it, or how to choose between modes (hybrid, semantic, keyword). The agent must infer usage from context.

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

• index_vaultB
  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 full burden. It states the tool does not modify the vault, which is helpful. However, it fails to disclose behaviors such as the effect of dry_run, what happens on reindex, or prerequisites like requiring the vault to be open. Partial disclosure.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and a key safety note. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. The agent is not informed about the behavior of mode (incremental vs full), paths (what happens if omitted), dry_run effects, or the requirement for include_sensitive. More details are needed for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is low (25%), with only include_sensitive having a description. The tool description adds no information about any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names only. This is insufficient for 4 parameters.

  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 verb 'Index or reindex' and the resource 'Obsidian vault into the external semantic index'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes, read_note, and index_status by describing a unique operation.

  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 implies usage for creating or updating the semantic index, and states it does not modify the vault, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes or index_status. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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

• read_noteA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description declares 'Read-only' which indicates no mutations, but it lacks details on error handling, behavior for invalid paths, line range specifics, and does not mention the 'include_sensitive' parameter or its implications. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

  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?

  A single sentence with 11 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action and resource type. Every component is necessary and adds value.

  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?

  No output schema is present, so the description should hint at the return value (e.g., note content). It does not. Also missing details on line range boundaries, path formatting, and the 'include_sensitive' parameter. Given tool complexity (4 params, no output schema), more context is needed.

  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 meaning to three parameters not documented in the schema: 'path' (vault-relative path), 'start_line' and 'end_line' (optional line range). Schema coverage is low (25%), and the description compensates by clarifying the core parameters, though it does not explain 'include_sensitive' 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 it reads markdown notes by vault-relative path with an optional line range. It uses specific verb 'read' and resource 'markdown note', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_notes (search) and index_vault (index).

  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 implies usage when you know the vault-relative path and optionally want a line range, but it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• index_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states a read-only operation ('Return'), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose error conditions or authentication needs, but for a simple parameterless status check, the clarity is sufficient.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, earning its place.

  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?

  While the purpose is clear, the description does not elaborate on the return value's structure or content. Since there is no output schema, more specificity about what 'status and safety settings' includes would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

  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 0 parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

  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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('semantic index status and safety settings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_notes and index_vault, which serve different purposes.

  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. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or contrast with sibling tools like index_vault.

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