Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• thinkA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations only include 'openWorldHint: false' with no readOnly or destructive hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns 'progress, surfaced guidance, and one next action'. It does not disclose effects on state, authorization needs, or parameter interaction behaviors.

  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 highly concise, using only 4 sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by sibling differentiations and a summary of returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

  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?

  Despite 15 parameters and nested objects, the description is brief. It omits details on how parameters like 'subSteps', 'alternatives', or 'quickExtension' work together. The absence of an output schema increases the need for behavioral description, which is lacking.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating the tool's purpose and return value. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage patterns.

  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 adds one evolving reasoning step for iterative work, revisions, or branches. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives like 'think_batch' and 'think_cycle'.

  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 the tool (iterative work, revisions, branches) and provides clear alternatives (think_batch, think_cycle, think_logic). However, it does not include explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

• think_doneA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds behavioral details beyond the sparse annotation (openWorldHint: false): it reveals that the tool performs verification, closure, and can reject with next corrections. It also mentions a specific action for think_cycle. This provides useful context about what the tool does internally.

  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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds key behavioral details. Every sentence is necessary and directly informative.

  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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context (verification, closure, rejection). It mentions returning 'next correction', hinting at output. However, it lacks explanation of how parameters interact or the overall workflow (e.g., after you have a winning path). The think_cycle reference adds some cross-tool context but also potential confusion.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like winningPath or verdict relate to the tool's behavior.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Verify and close a think/think_batch scope', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'For think_cycle use action=finalize', indicating a different use case. However, the reference to think_cycle within the description is slightly confusing and could be clearer about the differentiation.

  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 mentions using this tool 'before a complex final answer', which gives a usage context. It also describes rejection conditions. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to think_cycle is an alternative but not fully explanatory.

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

• think_recallA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description confirms the read-only nature ('Read-only search') as indicated by annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds context about scope types. No contradictions.

  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?

  Extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word adds value.

  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 schema fully describes parameters, annotations present, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality for a read-only search.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond 'saved insights' mapping to scope; no extra detail on limit, threshold, etc.

  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 specifies a clear verb ('search') and resource ('active/explicit scope or saved insights'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like think and think_done.

  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 the tool: 'before repeating work or relying on prior reasoning.' It does not provide negative examples or 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.

• think_logicA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description reinforces read-only behavior and adds boundaries (no code inspection, no storage, no findings). No contradictions, and description adds context beyond annotations.

  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 concise sentences plus one usage directive; front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. 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 tool's simplicity (read-only checklist with well-described schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral boundaries adequately. No gaps for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema; parameters are already well-described in the input 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?

  Description clearly states it returns a read-only code-analysis checklist, explicitly stating what it does not do (inspect code, store progress, produce findings). It also distinguishes from siblings by directing to use think or think_cycle for analysis.

  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?

  Explicit usage guidance: 'Use only when a model needs a methodology' and specifies alternatives (think, think_cycle) for performing analysis. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.

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

• think_cycleA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description reveals the multi-pass cycle behavior (start, step, gate, finalize) and the interplay with backends through backendMode. It adds constraint handling guidance. Annotations provide openWorldHint=false, which describes bounding of effects; the description complements this with workflow details. No contradictions 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concisely structured with a clear first sentence, a step-by-step flow paragraph, a sibling comparison sentence, and a bullet list for interop modes. Every sentence adds value; no wasted text.

  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 (16 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description provides a good overview of the lifecycle and usage. It covers when to use, the start-step-finalize flow, and interop. However, it does not explain the gate mechanism or stability concept mentioned in parameter descriptions, which would be helpful for full 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?

  Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 16 parameters. The description does not document parameters individually but integrates some into the workflow (e.g., constraints, constraintCheck, backendMode). This adds marginal value beyond schema, so score is above baseline 3.

  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 as an enforced multi-pass reasoning loop for high-risk or ambiguous work. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing users to use 'think' for ordinary iterative work and warning against using 'think_done' for a cycle. The verb 'run' and resource 'reasoning loop' are specific.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for high-risk or ambiguous work') and when not to ('for ordinary iterative work use think'). It also warns against using 'think_done' for a cycle, giving clear alternatives. The interop section further clarifies backend mode selection.

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