Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• memory_recall_contextB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. Discloses greedy packing and criticality ranking, but does not cover idempotency, state mutations, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Adds some value beyond the name but lacks comprehensiveness.

  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?

  Two sentences efficiently convey the core function and usage. While concise and front-loaded, the description could benefit from a structured breakdown, but overall it avoids unnecessary words.

  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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description partially covers purpose and usage but lacks details on parameter semantics, return format, and side effects. Adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to use without additional information.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 33% (only tokenBudget has a description). The tool description does not explain query or userId parameters, leaving them undefined. Fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, so minimal meaning is added beyond the schema.

  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?

  Describes returning the most critical memories for a query, greedily packed within a token budget. Clearly states verb and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools by emphasizing the token budget and context-block output, though not explicitly differentiating from memory_search.

  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?

  Explicitly states to use this tool to load long-term memory into a limited context window before answering. Provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like memory_search or mention when not to use.

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

• memory_forgetA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the process: merging clusters, forgetting contradicted/outdated items, decaying stale low-importance memories, and returning a report. It could mention idempotency or data loss details, but it is fairly transparent.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence explains the output. No extraneous information.

  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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the process but lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. Without an output schema, describing the report structure would improve completeness.

  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 coverage is 0% (no description for the userId parameter). The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or how it affects the operation. With only one required parameter, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any additional semantics.

  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 runs a maintenance pass that consolidates, forgets, and decays memories. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings (memory_recall_context, memory_search, memory_write) which are for recall, search, and writing, not maintenance.

  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 (maintenance pass) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• memory_searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait that recalled memories are reinforced (state modification), and explains ranking factors. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or truncation behavior beyond 'top matches'.

  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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and ranking details, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

  Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description explains the ranking, reinforcement, and top match behavior. It lacks details on return format but is sufficient for a search tool with k parameter limiting.

  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 67% (userId missing description). The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema for 'query' and 'k', and nothing for userId, resulting in marginal value added.

  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 'semantic search over a user's memories' with specific ranking criteria (similarity, importance, recency, recall count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_write and memory_forget.

  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 retrieving memories but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not conditions.

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

• memory_writeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description reveals that Qwen derives summary, tags, importance, and kind, which is beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it doesn't cover side effects, idempotency, or limits. Adequate but not thorough.

  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 efficient sentences: first defines purpose with examples, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

  For a 4-parameter write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral nuances (derived fields). Lacks some details like return value or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

  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 no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, only tying the concept of 'content' to the tool's purpose.

  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 persists user memories, with specific examples (preference, fact, commitment, event). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (forget, recall_context, search) by focusing on writing new information.

  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 second sentence explicitly says when to call: 'whenever the user reveals durable information you should recall in future sessions.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned, 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.