Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scaffold_create_foldersA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that folders are empty and existing directory is required, but does not disclose behavior like whether parent directories are auto-created or what happens if target_dir is missing. Meets baseline with annotations.

  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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and an Example. It is appropriately sized, though the example could be omitted without losing essential information. Still clear and front-loaded.

  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?

  For a simple 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, returns, and an example. The sibling tools provide context. Minor gap: behavior on pre-existing folders is not mentioned, but idempotent annotation covers it.

  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%, with both target_dir and folders described. The description's Args section repeats the schema but adds no new meaning, so baseline of 3 applies.

  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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Create empty folder structures within an existing directory.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like scaffold_create_files and scaffold_from_template by focusing on folders.

  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 gives an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it is for folder creation, but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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

• scaffold_list_templatesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only restating that it returns template names and descriptions. No additional details on pagination, filtering, or system behavior are provided, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 brief and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: the opening sentence already mentions template descriptions, and the 'Returns' section repeats that information. The example adds useful context, but a slightly tighter structure would be ideal.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states what the tool lists (templates) and what it returns (names and descriptions). It could optionally mention how this relates to sibling scaffolding tools, but that is not necessary for a simple list operation.

  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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter information to add, and because there are no parameters, no compensation is needed. The baseline score reflects this effectively.

  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 lists all available built-in project templates, using the specific verb 'List' plus a well-defined resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like scaffold_from_template or scaffold_create_project by focusing purely on listing rather than creating or modifying.

  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 usage context with example user queries ('What templates are available?' or 'Show me the templates'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples adequately convey when this tool is appropriate.

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

• scaffold_create_filesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral context: files are created relative to the given directory, and the operation can skip or error on files. It also mentions the return summary, which is not visible in annotations. This adds meaningful transparency without overstating 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and an Example. It is moderately concise and avoids excessive verbosity. The example is particularly useful but adds some length; still, every part contributes to understanding the tool.

  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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested array, overwrite behavior) and the presence of good schema and annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, return type, and operational constraints (relative paths, no new folder creation). The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return description.

  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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces these by listing them in an Args block and providing a concrete example call. The example clarifies the structure of the nested 'files' array, which is valuable beyond the schema's property 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 states the tool's function: 'Add files to an existing project directory.' This is a specific verb (add) and resource (files) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_create_folders and scaffold_create_project. The explicit note 'Does not create a new project folder' further differentiates it from the project-creation sibling.

  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 when to use the tool: to add files to an existing project directory. It also states a when-not condition ('Does not create a new project folder'), but it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool. This is slightly below level 5 because alternatives are not directly referenced, but it still offers solid usage guidance.

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

• scaffold_from_templateA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses overwrite behavior ('Whether to overwrite existing files') and return summary ('created, skipped, and errored files/folders'), which are not in the annotations. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations.

  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?

  Well-structured with intro, args, returns, and example paragraphs. It is not overly long, though the arg list duplicates schema info.

  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?

  Covers purpose, templates, return value, and an example, enough for a 4-parameter tool without an output schema. It doesn't address error cases or permission prerequisites, but the annotations and schema fill most gaps.

  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?

  Schema descriptions cover all four parameters; the tool description adds a structured arg list and an example that maps natural language to parameter values, reinforcing template_name and root_dir usage. This adds modest value 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 creates a complete project from a built-in template, enumerates available templates, and includes a concrete example mapping a natural-language request to parameter values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_create_folders and scaffold_create_files.

  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: use when scaffolding from a built-in template, listing six templates. However, it does not explicitly exclude or contrast with sibling tools such as scaffold_create_project, so guidance on alternatives is missing.

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

• scaffold_create_projectA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the return value ('summary of created, skipped, and errored files/folders') and parameter defaults (overwrite default false). These behaviors align with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and add context beyond what annotations alone provide.

  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 well-organized with Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is thorough yet every sentence contributes meaningful information—no filler. The example is compact and illustrates the exact structure expected.

  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 that there is no output schema, the description specifies the return structure. It covers all parameters, their types, optionality, defaults, and an example. The tool's behavior and parameters are fully described, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

  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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by providing a structured overview of each parameter and a concrete example showing the expected shape of the files array, which adds practical value 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a project from a custom structure definition.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold_list_templates, scaffold_from_template, scaffold_create_folders, and scaffold_create_files, which have different scopes.

  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 specifies it is for custom structure definitions, which implies it is used when creating a project from scratch rather than from a predefined template. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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