Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• append_memory_bank_entryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool appends with timestamping and optional header placement, but lacks details on permissions, file format constraints, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or mutation effects (e.g., overwriting). This is inadequate for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key optional feature. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, return values, or interaction with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in context.

  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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'section_header' is for markdown headers and 'entry' is content, but doesn't provide syntax examples or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 the action ('Appends'), resource ('to a specified file'), and key details ('new, timestamped entry', 'optionally under a specific markdown header'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'initialize_memory_bank' (which likely creates files) or 'read_memory_bank_file' (which reads content), missing full sibling distinction.

  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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new files), or comparisons to siblings like 'initialize_memory_bank' for setup or 'read_memory_bank_file' for retrieval, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• read_memory_bank_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reads') but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), or output format (e.g., plain text, structured data). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases or output format, which are crucial for a read operation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

  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% description coverage, with the parameter 'file_name' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 the verb ('Reads') and resource ('full content of a specified memory bank file'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_memory_bank_status' or 'append_memory_bank_entry', which might involve reading or checking content in different ways.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for retrieving entire files versus checking status or appending entries, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• initialize_memory_bankB
  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 of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool creates directories and files, it doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether this is idempotent (e.g., what happens if the memory bank already exists), permission requirements, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs file system operations.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (file system creation with templates), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like idempotency or error handling. With no structured fields to rely on, the agent would need more information for robust usage.

  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, with one optional parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high and there's only one parameter, the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'initial templates' provides slight additional context about the tool's behavior, justifying a score of 4.

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Creates the memory-bank directory and standard .md files with initial templates.' This specifies the verb ('Creates') and resources ('memory-bank directory and standard .md files'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_memory_bank_status' or 'read_memory_bank_file', which would require a 5.

  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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the memory bank must not already exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'append_memory_bank_entry'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

• check_memory_bank_statusA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (checking directory existence and listing .md files), which is helpful, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the directory doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or output format details. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Checks if...') and includes all relevant details (directory existence and file listing) in a compact form, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It explains what the tool does, but without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., whether it returns a boolean, list, or structured data). For a status-checking tool, more information on output behavior would enhance completeness.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters to explain, this meets expectations, but a perfect score is reserved for cases where the description adds value beyond an already complete schema, which isn't applicable here.

  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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('checks if... exists' and 'lists... files') and identifies the resource ('memory-bank directory' and '.md files'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status checking rather than appending, initializing, or reading specific files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 context by mentioning what the tool does (checking existence and listing files), which suggests it's for verifying the memory bank's state. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'initialize_memory_bank' or 'read_memory_bank_file', and doesn't specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions somewhat ambiguous.

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