Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• verify_doneA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact PASS/FAIL logic (test exit 0 plus all expect_changed paths appearing in git status) and the conditional git diff behavior. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond what annotations provide.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the mechanism and a memorable metaphor. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. Excellent structure.

  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 (5 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: running tests, diffing changes, and the PASS condition. It correctly omits output schema details since an output schema exists. Minor gaps like handling non-git repos are implicitly covered ('if the directory is a git repo'). Complete enough for an 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.

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to 'expect_changed' by explaining that each claimed path must appear in git status for PASS, and clarifies the role of the test command. This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions, justifying a 4.

  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: proving a task is complete by running tests and diffing changes. It uses a specific verb ('prove'), names the resource (task completion), and provides a vivid metaphor ('the gate between agent says done and I believe it'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'check_repro', its purpose is unambiguous and specific 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: any time you need to validate an agent's 'done' claim. It provides strong context through the gate metaphor, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use check_repro instead). Given clear context without exclusions, this aligns with a 4.

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

• check_reproA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses critical behavior: it treats non-zero exit as PASS (bug reproduced) and zero exit as failure to reproduce. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious semantics that the annotation block does not convey, making the description highly 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 concept 'Bug-first discipline', and every sentence adds value. It explains what the tool does, the expected input behavior, and the meaning of the result in a compact form.

  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?

  For a tool that executes a command and returns a pass/fail signal, the description fully captures the necessary context: the expectation of failure, the meaning of a non-zero exit, and the implication for the fixing workflow. The output schema likely covers return values, so nothing else is needed.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that repro_command should fail while the bug exists, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 command expected to fail and returns PASS only if it fails, which is a specific verb+resource combination. The 'bug-first discipline' framing immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool verify_done, which is about verification of completion.

  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 explicitly says to use it 'before fixing a bug' and warns that if the command passes, you haven't reproduced the bug yet and shouldn't start fixing. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, even though it doesn't name an alternative tool.

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