Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_memoriesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior and scoping, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or empty state behavior. The behavior is adequately described for basic usage but not fully 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 plus a line with type definitions. Every sentence is efficient and front-loaded, providing key information without verbosity.

  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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain page, page_size, and project_id. The output schema exists but is not leveraged to describe return values. The tool is simple, but the description still has gaps.

  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 0%. The description only explains the memory_type parameter values and scoping. The other three parameters (page, page_size, project_id) are undocumented, relying solely on schema defaults. This is insufficient for agents to understand parameter usage without additional context.

  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 it paginates through local EverOS memories by type, using the verb 'paginate'. It specifies memory types and their scoping, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like search_memory (search) and remember (create). However, it could be more explicit about the listing action.

  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 memory types and their scoping (user vs. agent), helping the agent choose the appropriate type. It does not include when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear for a pagination tool.

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

• rememberA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool stores data into memory for later recall, implying non-destructiveness. However, it lacks details on idempotency, storage limits, or overwrite behavior, which would be helpful for a write operation.

  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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. No redundant words; information is front-loaded and well-structured.

  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?

  While the output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description fails to cover all three parameters (missing session_id). It also doesn't mention confirmation or returned identifier, leaving some behavioral gaps. Adequate but not thorough.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'content' (store a fact) and 'project_id' (scoping), but does not mention 'session_id' at all, leaving that parameter's purpose unclear.

  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 'Store' and the resource 'fact / decision / note into local EverOS memory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (briefing, list_memories, search_memory) by focusing on storage rather than retrieval.

  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?

  It provides explicit guidance on when to use ('high-value context worth keeping across sessions') and when not to ('not whole conversations'). It also explains scoping behavior with project_id, but does not mention alternatives or when-not to use relative to siblings.

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

• briefingA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions returning episodes and profile but does not specify side effects, authentication needs, or read-only guarantee.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It provides sufficient context for a simple briefing tool among sibling memory tools.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies top_k controls number of episodes and project_id filters by project, but lacks explicit details on parameter meaning.

  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 provides a session-start briefing with most recent episodes and profile for the current project, distinguishing it from sibling memory tools.

  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?

  It explicitly advises to call at the start of a session to recall recent work, giving clear context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the usage is well-specified.

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

• search_memoryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns relevant episodes and is scoped; it doesn't mention modifications, so it's implied read-only. No contradictions, and it adequately describes behavior for a search tool.

  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 purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and well-structured.

  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 an output schema exists (signal: true), the description need not detail return values. It covers key inputs, scoping, and source context (ingestion/remember). Minor gap: no mention of result limit or ordering.

  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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'query', 'project_id', and 'include_profile' but does not detail 'top_k' (only default is 5). This adds partial meaning but leaves a parameter under-specified.

  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 it searches local EverOS memory (past conversations and facts) and returns relevant episodes for a query, with specific scoping and profile options. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' and 'remember'.

  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 implies when to use this tool (searching past data) versus siblings (listing or remembering), and explains scoping and profile inclusion. However, it lacks explicit 'use this when' or direct comparisons to alternatives.

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