Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• knobe_seal_textA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide little behavioral cue (all false). The description adds transparency by noting the confirmation prompt unless KNOBE_NO_CONFIRM is set, and briefly describes the return format. It does not fully detail side effects like file overwrite behavior (though overwrite param exists) or potential blocking on user input. Still, it adds useful context beyond annotations.

  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?

  The description is concise (under 150 words) and well-structured with a main sentence, a note about confirmation flow, and an Args/Returns list. It conveys necessary info, though it references knobe_seal_file multiple times, slightly reducing efficiency.

  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 high parameter count (12) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides a useful summary of the return structure and core workflow. It omits details on some parameters (e.g., privacy_level, content_type) but refers to sibling tool for consistency. Overall, it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors.

  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 minimal elaboration beyond the schema: it lists three args (body, title, output_path) and mentions 'remaining metadata fields as in knobe_seal_file'. The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description does not significantly augment understanding.

  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 verb 'Seal' and the resource 'text body as a KNOBE document'. It specifies that it handles in-memory text, distinguishing it from knobe_seal_file which seals a file. This is specific and differentiates from siblings.

  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 indicates that the tool is for sealing a text body passed directly in the tool call, e.g., the output of a conversion step. It references knobe_seal_file for similar confirmation flow, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or state all alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

• knobe_readA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: returns markdown report, body truncated at 25000 chars, and warns that content is untrusted. No contradictions.

  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?

  Front-loaded with purpose and behavioral notes, followed by parameter and return description. Efficient but slightly repetitive between description and Args section. Good overall structure.

  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 low parameter count, existing output schema, and annotations, the description provides complete guidance: return format, truncation, untrusted warning, and side-effect guarantee. No gaps.

  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?

  Only one parameter (path) with full schema coverage. The description repeats the schema's description in the Args section, adding little extra meaning beyond structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 title and description clearly state the tool reads a KNOBE document, specifying components (verification report, sealed payload, body text). It distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like knobe_seal_* and knobe_verify.

  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 it is for presentation, read-only, and never prompts the user. Warns about untrusted content. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with siblings or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• knobe_seal_fileA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses key behaviors: user confirmation for author, defaults, and error cases. Annotations provide no hints, so the description carries the burden adequately. It could mention filesystem write behavior more explicitly.

  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 well-organized with a clear overview, parameter summary, return type, and error list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 (12 parameters, elicitation, errors), the description covers the essential workflow and edge cases. The output schema exists, so return details are sufficient. Sibling comparisons are not needed for completeness.

  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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the author elicitation, default derivations, and error handling, going beyond the schema field descriptions.

  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 verb 'seal' and the resource 'existing text/markdown file', and specifies the output as a KNOBE Protocol v1 document. It distinguishes from siblings like knobe_seal_text by targeting file input.

  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 explains the author elicitation process, required conditions, and error handling. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 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.

• knobe_verifyA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safety. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'never prompts the user,' the full list of integrity states, and the fact that the action parameter evaluates permission against sealed governance fields. It also describes the return value shape (markdown plus structured JSON). No contradiction with 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 concise (4 sentences plus bullet list and args) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior note, integrity states, parameter explanation, return value. No fluff or repetition.

  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 the presence of an output schema (mentioned), the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return format. It explains what the tool checks (cryptographic seal, spec conformance) and what outputs are produced. No obvious gaps for a verification tool of moderate complexity.

  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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds value by providing example actions ('redistribute', 'summarize', 'train') for the 'action' parameter, which goes beyond the generic schema description. The 'path' parameter is reinforced identically, but the examples elevate the score above the baseline of 3.

  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 function: 'Verify the cryptographic seal and spec conformance of a KNOBE document.' It lists integrity states, which solidifies the purpose. The verb 'verify' and the resource 'KNOBE document' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools like knobe_read (which reads) and knobe_seal_* (which creates seals).

  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 mentions 'Read-only; never prompts the user,' which is a behavioral note but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate. The context of sibling names suggests usage, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

• knobe_seal_batchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (which are minimal), the description fully discloses batch behavior: independent file processing, failure handling, return structure with sealed/failed/author/aborted, and that files remain on disk on abort. No contradictions with annotations.

  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?

  The description is well-organized with two paragraphs and bullet-point args. It is concise enough while covering key behaviors. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., explaining confirm_each twice), but overall efficient.

  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 11 parameters, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides rich context: batch processing, error accumulation, abort handling, and links to sibling tools (knobe_seal_file). No gaps in explaining the tool's behavior or output.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that metadata fields are applied per file, that title derives from filename, and provides detail on confirm_each and paths limits (1-200). This enriches understanding beyond schema alone.

  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 'Seal multiple files as KNOBE documents', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like knobe_seal_file (single file) and knobe_seal_text (text input), making the batch scope explicit.

  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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., 'an entire conversion run') and describes the confirm_each behavior for per-file vs batch prompting. It references knobe_seal_file for shared metadata, providing implicit guidance on alternatives, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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