Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• perseus_recallA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses use of FTS5 keyword + hybrid ranking, and that it returns scored results. Lacks explicit statement that it is read-only, but 'retrieve' implies non-destructive behavior.

  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?

  Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with primary purpose and usage guidance. Efficient and to the point.

  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?

  Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, ranking mechanism, and that results include scores. Minor gap: could mention result sorting by relevance.

  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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'Uses FTS5 keyword + hybrid ranking' but does not clarify parameter interactions). 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?

  Clearly states it retrieves memories from past sessions, with specific use cases and examples. Distinguishes from siblings (remember, forget, reflect, status) by focusing on 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?

  Explicitly says when to call ('at start of task', when needing project context) and provides example queries. No exclusion criteria, but sibling tools cover different operations, so usage is clear.

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

• perseus_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and non-destructive by reporting health info. It lacks details on response format or any side effects, but the listed specifics are sufficient.

  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?

  Single sentence with front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates what the tool does and its zero-arg nature.

  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 zero-arg tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and lists key information. Could mention return format (e.g., 'returns a JSON object'), but overall adequate.

  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?

  Input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description explicitly confirms 'Zero-argument', adding value beyond the schema.

  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 specific verbs ('Report') and lists exact resources (memories stored, encryption, database location, reflect availability). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (forget, recall, reflect, remember) by focusing on health/status.

  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 this tool is for checking health/status, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The zero-argument note helps clarify simplicity.

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

• perseus_forgetA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses soft-deletion, recoverability, and the effect on recall queries. It could be improved by mentioning any side effects or limits, but the core behavioral traits are well described.

  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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, mechanism, and usage hint. No superfluous words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

  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 forget tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, recoverability, and relationship to sibling tools. It could be expanded with success/failure indicators, but is largely 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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'key' and 'category' form a composite key for soft-deletion and that 'reason' is an optional note, which goes beyond the schema's property 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 action ('Remove a stale or incorrect memory'), the mechanism ('soft-deletes by (category, key)'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing prior perseus_recall/perseus_remember results, which aids selection.

  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 explicitly tells the agent to use the key from prior perseus_recall/perseus_remember results, providing clear context. However, it does not state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives like perseus_status or perseus_reflect.

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

• perseus_reflectA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses use of optional LLM and returns either grounded answer or memory context. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it covers key behaviors without contradictions.

  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?

  Three front-loaded sentences with no filler. First sentence captures core purpose, followed by clear procedural explanation.

  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?

  Covers main behavior, LLM optionality, and return format. Lacks edge cases or error handling, but is adequate given tool simplicity and lack of output schema.

  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%, but description adds value by explaining the roles of query and top_k in the reflection process, and the optional LLM configuration impact.

  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?

  Clearly states it synthesizes an insight from stored memories, using a question to recall relevant memories and produce a grounded answer. Distinguishes from sibling tools like perseus_recall (raw retrieval) and perseus_remember (storage).

  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 describes when to use (given a question) and behavior when LLM is not configured. No explicit when-not or alternative mentions, but context implies use for synthesis vs. raw recall.

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

• perseus_rememberA
  4.4/5.0
  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. It discloses that memory is 'persistent encrypted memory' surviving sessions, and notes idempotency per (category, key). This adds behavioral context beyond the input schema, though it omits details like rate limits or return format.

  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 exceptionally concise: only two sentences. The first sentence precisely explains the tool's function, and the second provides usage guidance and the idempotency property. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

  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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core aspects: purpose, idempotency, and encryption. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation), but the key behavioral traits are addressed. The sibling tools imply recall capability.

  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% with parameter descriptions. The main description adds value by explaining idempotency behavior for key and category ('Re-using a key updates that memory'), and describing 'text' as 'in plain language.' This supplements the schema, justifying a 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 purpose: 'Save a fact, decision, convention, or piece of context to persistent encrypted memory.' It specifies the verb 'save' and the resource 'persistent encrypted memory,' and provides concrete examples of what to save. This differentiates it from siblings like perseus_forget and perseus_recall.

  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 advises when to call this tool: 'Call this whenever you learn something durable about the project.' It lists examples such as build commands and code style. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the idempotency hint ('Idempotent per (category, key)') provides useful context.

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