Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• git_diffA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, but does not disclose other aspects like exit codes, empty-output behavior, or performance characteristics. For a simple read-only tool this is acceptable 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. It efficiently conveys the core action and optional scope, earning its place without waste.

  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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scoping. It omits explicit sibling differentiation, but given the tool's simplicity, the information provided is sufficient for correct invocation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'path' parameter. It says 'optionally scoped to one file', which clarifies that the path is a file path and optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema definition.

  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 shows unstaged changes, uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('unstaged changes'), and mentions optional file scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status (which shows repository status) and git_log (history), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 when to use it (to see unstaged changes) but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer usage from context. This is adequate but not explicit.

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

• git_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. The explicit 'read-only' parenthetical covers the only meaningful behavioral trait for a zero-parameter status command. There are no auth, rate-limit, or destruction concerns to disclose.

  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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds semantic 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?

  For a parameterless read-only command backed by an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly situate itself relative to the sibling tools, but nothing needed for a correct invocation is missing.

  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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is already complete and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools 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 names a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('working tree status'), making the tool's target unmistakable. The parenthetical 'read-only' reinforces the nature of the operation. It is clearly distinct from the sibling git tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance about when to use git_status versus git_diff, git_log, or git_show. The only context is implicit in the resource name, and no decision criteria or exclusions are provided.

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

• git_logA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and that max_count is capped at 50, which are useful behavioral constraints. It does not mention ordering or required repository state, but those are minor for a simple log 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?

  Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and safety trait, followed by a parameter constraint. No wasted words.

  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 description covers purpose, safety, and the key limit, and an output schema exists to explain return values. It lacks explicit selection guidance versus siblings, but for a simple read-only log tool this is sufficient.

  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 has only a type and title for max_count, and coverage is 0% in the description. The description adds a concrete constraint (capped at 50) and the parameter name is self-explanatory about limiting the number of commits. It could state that it controls how many commits are returned, but the cap is a useful addition.

  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 explicitly says 'Show recent commit history,' which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status and git_diff by naming the resource (commit history). The read-only qualifier adds further precision.

  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 (showing recent commits) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over git_status, git_diff, or git_show. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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

• git_showA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'read-only', which is the key behavioral trait for a show commandiscovers potential side effects or mutation. The output schema covers return format, so no need to describe that here.

  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?

  One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the core behavior. The read-only qualifier is parenthetical but doesn't waste space.

  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 single-command tool, the description covers what the tool does, the parameter format, and reads as read-only. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured elsewhere. Minor gap: no mention of git_diff use case distinction, but not required for calling the 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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'ref' parameter. It does so by specifying that the value is a hash or ref identifying a commit, which is meaningful beyond the bare schema type 'string'.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('Show'), resource ('a specific commit's diff'), and method ('by hash/ref'), with a clear read-only scope. This distinguishes it from git_status and git_log, and the 'specific commit' qualifier separates it from a generic git_diff.

  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 when to use it (you have a commit hash/ref and want its diff), but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like git_diff or git_log, nor state exclusions. The context is clear but leaves selection among similar tools to inference.

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