Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_project_fileA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'safely' without elaborating on permissions, error handling, or output format. It does not disclose behaviors like handling non-existent files or line range validity. Given the absence of annotations, the description does not adequately cover behavioral traits.

  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 a single concise sentence that states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

  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?

  The tool is simple (read a file) and has a complete schema, but the description lacks details on the output format (does it return the full text with line numbers? only the requested line range?) and error behavior. Without an output schema, the description should clarify these aspects.

  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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the phrase 'with line numbers' and 'within the project', which slightly enhances context but does not explain start_line/end_line behavior beyond what the schema states.

  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 uses a clear verb 'reads' with a specific resource ('contents of a specific file within the project') and mentions line numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_tree (tree structure), search_codebase (searching), and inspect_tech_stack (tech stack).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the siblings or provide exclusions. It implies usage for reading file contents, but lacks clear contextual guidance such as 'use for viewing file source'.

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

• search_codebaseA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the basic output and does not disclose important traits such as case sensitivity, whether it searches filenames or content, or limitations like respecting .gitignore. This is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and output. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  The tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and the description explains the return format. While there is no output schema, the description mentions the key output components. It lacks minor details like result ordering or default limits, but the overall description is sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for query, use_regex, and max_results. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 description clearly states the verb 'searches', the resource 'codebase', and the scope 'text pattern or regular expression'. It also mentions the output format (files, line numbers, snippets), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_tree or read_project_file.

  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 makes the purpose clear, so it's obvious when this tool should be used, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. No explicit exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, unlike the high-calibration example.

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

• get_project_treeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the key behavior of respecting .gitignore rules, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any performance or permission considerations. It is adequate but not rich.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the semantic meaning, and it immediately states what the tool does.

  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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the output and key filtering behavior. It does not explain the return format in detail, but 'directory structure and file tree' adequately describes the result. It misses only a few nuances like hidden files or symlinks, but overall it is sufficient.

  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%, and the only parameter max_depth is well-described in the schema ('Maximum directory depth to scan (default: 4)'). The tool description adds no additional nuance about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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: 'Returns the directory structure and file tree of the local repository.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'respecting .gitignore rules' clause adds scope. It is well-distinguished from siblings like search_codebase, read_project_file, and inspect_tech_stack.

  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—it returns the repo structure—but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. No mention of 'if you need to search use...' or 'use this before read_project_file to locate files.' Usage context is only implicit.

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

• inspect_tech_stackA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 'analyzes' package files, suggesting a non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it won't modify files or require special permissions. There is no disclosure of side effects or limitations.

  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?

  A single, focused sentence states the action, resources, and output. Every part earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with the verb and key object.

  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 a 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it reports. It lists specific file types to inspect, which clarifies scope. It could add a note about behavior when no package files are found, but that is a minor gap.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object. The description therefore needs no parameter explanation, and the baseline of 4 applies. The examples of file types give context, but no additional parameter semantics are needed.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Analyzes' with clear resources (package files) and outputs (dependencies, frameworks, setup). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_tree or search_codebase by focusing on package files rather than general file structure or code search.

  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 when one needs the tech stack, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. No sibling tool is referenced, so guidance is only inferred from the purpose.

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