Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• council_runD
  1.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Run the bounded personal council' without mentioning side effects, permissions, state changes, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent blind to the tool's runtime behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It contains no meaningful detail and does not earn its brevity, as it offers no value beyond restating the tool's name.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but the description provides no information about return values, invocation context, or expected behavior. This is highly inadequate for a tool of this complexity, especially given the absence of annotations.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all 9 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the complete lack of meaning around task, mode, budget, max_rounds, and other parameters.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description uses 'Run' as a verb and 'the bounded personal council' as a resource, giving a clear syntactic structure. However, the phrase is vague and does not explain what the council is, what 'run' entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like memory_manage and system_status.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use council_run versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any alternative approaches or exclusions. It simply states the action without context.

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

• memory_manageB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 implies mutation (store, delete) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or output format. The mention of 'delete' hints at destructive behavior, but without details the agent cannot anticipate consequences.

  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, front-loaded with the tool's core actions. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition. It is optimally concise for the high-level purpose it conveys.

  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?

  Despite having 6 parameters and multiple actions, the description gives no information about which parameters are required for each action, what the output looks like, or any operational constraints. The output schema exists but its content is not shown, and the description does not compensate. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

  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 0%, but the description's list of verbs ('search', 'store', 'list', 'delete', 'export', 'profile') effectively documents the possible values for the required 'action' parameter. However, other parameters (kind, limit, query, content, memory_id) are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

  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 with specific verbs (search, store, list, delete, export, profile) on the resource 'memory'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like council_run and system_status, which are unrelated operations. The verb list is concrete and actionable.

  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?

  The description lists possible actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose one action over another. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context like whether memory management is preferred over other tools for specific tasks.

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

• system_statusA
  4.1/5.0
  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 a key behavioral trait—that it does not call a provider—which indicates it is local and likely non-blocking. However, it does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it checks resource usage, connectivity, etc.) or any other behavioral details beyond the basic request.

  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, streamlined sentence that conveys the essential purpose in a few words. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  This is a simple zero-parameter health check tool with an output schema present. The description, combined with the output schema, provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. No additional details are necessary for this complexity level.

  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, and schema coverage is trivially 100% (no properties). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no parameter info, which is fine here.

  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 identifies the resource as 'local health', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like council_run and memory_manage. The phrase 'without calling a provider' adds scope and context, making the tool's purpose 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?

  The description implies when to use the tool ('when you want local health without calling a provider') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools. It gives a clear context clue but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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