Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ingest_turnC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'candidate durable memory' does add meaningful context—it implies the stored interaction is not necessarily permanent and may be subject to later promotion or filtering. However, it does not mention auth requirements, idempotency, storage limits, or what happens to the candidate after ingestion.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core meaning. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it is so terse that it leaves important operational context to be supplied elsewhere.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a state-changing tool with no annotations, four required parameters, a nested object, and a sibling retrieval tool, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of token, the shape of metadata, and any indication of side effects or the candidate-memory lifecycle.

  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%, and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters. Token, user_input, and assistant_output are reasonably inferable from their names, but metadata's structure and purpose are left completely opaque.

  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 uses a specific verb ('store') and a concrete resource ('one interaction as candidate durable memory'), and the contrast with the sibling get_context makes the write-vs-read split apparent. It stops short of a full 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_context or clarify whether 'interaction' maps exactly to a 'turn'.

  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 statement about when to use this tool versus get_context, no prerequisites, and no mention that this is the right choice for persisting conversation data. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and the verb 'store,' which is not enough guidance.

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

• get_contextB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'retrieves' context, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose authentication expectations, side effect behavior, failure modes, or how the durable memory is selected or scoped.

  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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and object efficiently, earning every word.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With six parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and only one sibling, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the tool's parameter semantics, authentication context, and selection behavior remain unclear.

  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%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. 'Caller input' loosely maps to the input parameter and 'compact' hints at max_context_chars, but token, session_id, include_chunks, and diary_lookback_days are entirely unexplained.

  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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('compact durable memory context') tied to the caller input. It clearly distinguishes itself from the only sibling, ingest_turn, by framing this as a retrieval operation versus an ingestion one.

  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?

  No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus ingest_turn, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description implies a retrieval use case but does not explain when this is the right choice or when another tool should be preferred.

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