Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scan_codeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behaviors: it scans directories, respects .gitignore, lists definitions with line numbers, and supports multiple output formats. However, it does not mention performance aspects (e.g., speed, memory usage), error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). The description adds substantial value beyond the schema.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality (scanning, listing definitions) and key features (supported languages, .gitignore respect, output formats). Every part earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action, supported file types, filtering behavior (.gitignore), and output options. However, it lacks details on return values (since no output schema) and could mention more about error cases or limitations. It's sufficient but not exhaustive.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions output formats but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate with extra insights.

  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 with specific verbs ('scans', 'lists') and resources ('directory for code files', 'definitions with line numbers'). It distinguishes what it does by specifying supported languages (JS, TS, C#, PHP, CSS), respect for .gitignore, and output formats (XML, Markdown, JSON). No sibling tools exist, but the description is comprehensive enough to stand alone.

  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 'scans a directory for code files' and output formats, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical, but it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., directory accessibility) or exclusions. The implied context is adequate but not explicit.

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