Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• bridge_costA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a read-only operation (report cumulative cost) but does not detail whether the report resets, the time scope, or any potential side effects. Given no annotations, the description carries full burden but leaves some ambiguity.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output structure.

  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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output (breakdown by thread and grand total). It could be improved by clarifying what 'API cost' means (e.g., tokens or dollars), but overall complete for a simple report.

  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 zero parameters, the description inherently covers all parameter semantics. The baseline is 4 per guidelines, and the description does not contradict 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 reports cumulative API cost of ask_codebase calls, broken down by thread and grand total. This distinguishes it from siblings like ask_codebase (which likely makes API calls) and bridge_forget (which might manage state).

  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 monitoring costs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite instructions.

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

• ask_codebaseA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature ('explores the repo READ-ONLY'), exploration methods (Read/Grep/Glob), return format (synthesized answer with file:line references and cost footer), thread behavior (context caching for steering), model binding rules, effort variability, and the optional show_steps to reveal the exploration trail. This exceeds what is required for confident invocation.

  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, starting with the primary purpose followed by parameter details. It is efficient, with each sentence serving a clear purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy; a touch more conciseness could be achieved without losing clarity.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, turn-based steering, model binding, caching), the description covers all essential behavioral and contextual aspects: usage scenarios, parameter interactions, cost reporting, and output format. Since an output schema exists, omission of explicit return value details is acceptable. A minor gap is the lack of error condition description, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all five parameters: the required 'question,' optional 'thread' for steering, 'model' with binding rules, 'effort' with allowed values (low, medium, high, xhigh, max), and 'show_steps' for transparency. Although defaults are not explicitly stated, the descriptions are clear and add significant meaning beyond the raw 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 core function: 'Ask a natural-language question about the local codebase, with turn-based steering.' It uses specific verbs ('ask,' 'steer') and a well-defined resource ('local codebase'), and distinguishes itself from siblings (bridge_cost, bridge_forget) by focusing on querying and analysis.

  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 explains when to use a thread (for multi-turn steering) versus one-off queries, and how to vary effort within a thread. It also notes that switching models on an existing thread is refused, prompting the user to start a new thread. While it mentions bridge_cost for cost details, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• bridge_forgetA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Fully discloses behavioral traits: session is dropped, next call starts fresh, in-flight call finishes but its state update is discarded. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so completely.

  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?

  Three sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information.

  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 core behavior and parameter use. An output schema exists, so no need to explain return values. Could mention error conditions (e.g., invalid thread name), but overall complete for a simple 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?

  Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the single parameter 'thread': passing a name forgets that thread, omitting forgets all. This exceeds the schema's contribution.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Drop' and resource 'thread's session', with explicit distinction between forgetting one thread or all. The action is unique among siblings (ask_codebase, bridge_cost), so purpose is unambiguous.

  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?

  Provides clear usage patterns (pass thread name or omit for all), but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains behavior but does not contrast with other tools or indicate when not to use it.

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