Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_checkpointA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (plan, current step, done actions, next action) and implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or safety. Adequate but could be more explicit.

  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 in the first paragraph plus a brief bullet-like explanation of return values. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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 the output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the tool's purpose and return content (plan, step, done actions, next action). It could mention what happens if no checkpoint exists, but overall is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the optional project_dir parameter: 'Optional project directory override; defaults to the server's working directory (walking up to the nearest .git root).' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Project Dir' label.

  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 'Get the latest checkpoint for this project — where to resume from.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('checkpoint'), and distinguishes from siblings (clear_checkpoints, list_checkpoints, save_checkpoint) by focusing on resumption.

  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 says 'Call this FIRST when a task looks like a continuation of earlier work (e.g. after a session was cut off).' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare directly with siblings.

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

• save_checkpointA
  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 the full burden. It discloses the purpose and parameter roles, but does not specify whether it overwrites existing checkpoints or enforces any constraints like uniqueness per step.

  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?

  Well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, followed by usage guidance, then a clearly labeled Args section. Every sentence adds value.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description provides complete guidance on purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema covers return values.

  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 has zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with a detailed Args section explaining the meaning and expected content of each parameter, including optional project_dir.

  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: 'Save a progress checkpoint so any future agent session can resume exactly here.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (clear, get, list) 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?

  Explicit guidance on when to call: 'Call this after EVERY concrete sub-task...Frequent, small checkpoints are the point.' It implies not to call only at step boundaries, but does not explicitly address when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

• list_checkpointsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: returns history with timestamps, ordered newest first, default limit, and project_dir resolution. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers main behavior without need for additional detail like auth or rate limits.

  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?

  Two distinct sections: one-line purpose followed by Args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, front-loaded with key 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 an output schema exists (assumed) and parameters are fully described, no gaps remain. Siblings are accounted for by distinctive purpose. Simple list tool fully covered.

  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, description adds essential meaning: limit default and max count, project_dir default and resolution strategy. This goes beyond type info in schema, making parameters 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?

  Description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'checkpoint history' with ordering (newest first) and content (timestamps). Differentiates from siblings like get_checkpoint and save_checkpoint by being a list operation.

  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?

  Provides clear context: lists checkpoints for a project. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and distinguishable from siblings.

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

• clear_checkpointsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  In the absence of annotations, the description discloses the dry-run behavior and the requirement for confirmation. However, it does not mention edge cases like zero checkpoints or result format.

  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?

  Concise and well-structured with a clear main sentence and bullet-pointed Args. Slightly verbose in the dry-run explanation, but overall efficient.

  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 sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and parameter behavior. Could add a word about response format.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: confirm's dry run vs delete behavior, and project_dir's default resolution policy.

  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 'Delete all checkpoints for this project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_checkpoint, list_checkpoints, and save_checkpoint.

  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 explains when to use confirm=false (dry run) vs confirm=true (actual deletion), and instructs to ask user before deleting. Provides clear usage context.

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