Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cache_itA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that saved items become part of future context automatically. Annotations indicate writing intent, and the description complements this with a meaningful side effect.

  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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 schema covers parameter details and annotations are present, the description provides sufficient context for a low-complexity tool. It does not cover return values, but no output schema exists.

  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?

  All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add further meaning. It does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.

  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 ('save') and resource ('CacheTank'), and provides examples of trigger phrases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'fill_tank', which may cause confusion.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('important decision, conclusion, or something worth keeping') and includes trigger phrases. It lacks exclusion criteria or alternatives to the sibling tool.

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

• fill_tankA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating 'Fetch.' The description adds value by specifying the returned content (identity, project knowledge, recent outputs), going beyond the annotations.

  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: the first covers action and returns, the second covers usage. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant. It is very concise.

  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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it fetches, when to use it, and expected returns. No significant gaps are present.

  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 input schema already explains the 'project' parameter well. The description reinforces its role by mentioning 'specific project' and 'switch projects,' but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

  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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('CacheTank context'), and the scope ('for a specific project'). It also lists the returned data (identity, active project knowledge, recent outputs), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool 'cache_it'.

  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 explicitly notes when to use the tool: 'when you need to refresh context or switch projects mid-conversation.' While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the provided context is clear and actionable.

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