Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_indexed_docsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description indicates a read-only operation (returns data) but does not disclose behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or concrete side effects. The return format is described briefly.

  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 extremely concise with two short sentences and a returns clause. No redundant words. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

  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?

  Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (formatted string listing documents or empty message). No additional context is needed for this simple read tool.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 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 'List all documents currently indexed' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_document, index_document, and search_docs.

  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 a full list but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. search_docs or other alternatives. No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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

• search_docsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description discloses internal mechanism (embedding, cosine similarity, lower distance = more relevant) and return format (chunks, sources, distances, empty KB message). Missing details on side effects or auth, but as a read-only tool, transparency is nearly complete.

  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?

  Description is concise and well-structured: first line states purpose, followed by explanation, then parameter descriptions, finally return info. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  Given 3 parameters, no nested objects, and presence of output schema (though not shown), description covers all necessary aspects: how search works, parameter details, return format, and edge case (empty KB). No gaps identified.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Description adds meaning beyond schema: `n_results` is explained with default 5 and max 20 (not in schema), `source_filter` specifies exact filename, `query` described as natural-language or keyword. Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates.

  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 'Semantically search the knowledge base for content related to `query`.' The verb 'search' and resource 'knowledge base' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools (delete, index, list). Explanation of embedding and cosine similarity reinforces purpose.

  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?

  Description implies use for retrieval, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like exact-match search. Sibling tools have clearly different purposes, so context is sufficient but not explicit.

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

• index_documentA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes the full pipeline: reads file, splits into chunks, embeds with nomic-embed-text via Ollama, stores vectors in ChromaDB. Discloses that re-indexing is safe with old chunks replaced. No annotations to contradict; description adds substantial behavioral context.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two short paragraphs plus Args/Returns section. First sentence immediately communicates purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

  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?

  Covers purpose, process, parameter constraints, return value, and idempotency. Missing details on error handling or size limits, but output schema exists and tool is simple. Adequate for the context.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Single parameter file_path has no schema description; the description adds absolute path requirement and lists supported file types (.pdf .md .txt .py .js .ts .json .yaml .yml), which is critical for correct invocation.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool indexes a document into a knowledge base for searchability. Distinguishes from siblings (delete_document, list_indexed_docs, search_docs) by focusing on adding content.

  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?

  Provides explicit context: indexes for search, re-indexing is safe with automatic replacement. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice but is sufficiently clear given sibling tools.

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

• delete_documentA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but description clearly indicates destructive behavior and return confirmation. Could mention permanence, but adequate.

  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?

  Concise docstring format with no fluff; every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Complete for a simple delete tool with one param and output schema mentioned.

  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?

  Describes 'source' parameter with example and reference to list_indexed_docs for valid values, adding value beyond 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?

  Clearly states 'Remove a document and all its chunks from the knowledge base.' Distinguishes from sibling tools (index, list, search).

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use: after update or when no longer needed. References list_indexed_docs for valid filenames.

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