Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_allowed_directoriesA
  3.8/5.0
  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 states the tool returns absolute paths of directories the server can read/write, which is useful. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the list is cached or real-time, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then specify the return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with 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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema that defines the return type), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns, and the output schema handles return value details. However, it lacks behavioral context like permissions or caching, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it does clarify the tool's purpose and output, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description effectively compensates by focusing on the tool's function.

  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 specific action ('List all allowed directory roots') and resource ('for filesystem operations'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory (which lists contents of a specific directory) or directory_tree (which shows hierarchical structure). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 context by mentioning 'allowed directory roots for filesystem operations,' suggesting this tool helps determine where operations are permitted. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_directory or directory_tree, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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

• directory_treeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a tree structure (behavior) and may return an error message on failure (error handling). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether it follows symlinks, recursion depth limits, permission requirements, or performance characteristics for large directories.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the core functionality, the Args section clarifies parameter usage, and the Returns section explains output behavior. 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (directory tree generation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present (returns string), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The main gap is lack of detailed behavioral context about tree generation specifics, but the output schema reduces the need to explain return format.

  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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the 0% schema coverage. While the schema only shows a 'path' parameter with type string, the description clarifies it can be 'absolute or relative to allowed directories', explaining path resolution context. Since there's only one parameter and the description provides meaningful context, this compensates well for the schema gap.

  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 specific action ('Generate a plain text tree structure') and resource ('of a directory'), using precise verb+resource phrasing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_directory (which likely shows file details) and list_allowed_directories (which shows accessible paths) by focusing on hierarchical tree visualization.

  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 context through the 'path' parameter description mentioning 'allowed directories', suggesting this tool is for visualizing directory structures within permitted paths. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_directory or when not to use it (e.g., for non-directory paths).

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

• delete_fileA
  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 and does well: it clearly states this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), specifies constraints ('Path must be within allowed directory roots'), and describes failure conditions ('Fails if file doesn't exist or cannot be deleted'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid behavioral context for a destructive 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?

  Perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then Args/Returns/Note sections with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

  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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with output schema, the description is quite complete: covers purpose, parameter meaning, constraints, failure modes, and return value explanation. The output schema handles return structure, so description doesn't need to detail that. Could mention permissions or irreversible nature more explicitly, but covers most essentials.

  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 compensate. It provides meaningful context for the single parameter: explains what 'path' represents ('File path to delete'), clarifies format options ('absolute or relative to allowed directories'), and adds constraints not in schema ('within allowed directory roots'). It doesn't specify path syntax examples, but adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete a file') and resource ('from the filesystem'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_file, edit_file, or read_text_file. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

  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 through the 'Note' section mentioning path constraints, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_file or when not to use it (e.g., for directories vs files). It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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

• move_fileA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: path constraints ('within allowed directory roots'), failure conditions ('fails if destination already exists'), and side effects ('creates parent directories for destination if needed'). It doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

  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?

  Perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, and Note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool with behavioral complexity.

  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 2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema (Returns section), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, constraints, and behavior well. Minor gaps include lack of explicit error handling details beyond 'error message if failed' and no mention of atomicity or transaction behavior for the move operation.

  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 compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'src' as 'Source file path (absolute or relative to allowed directories)' and 'dst' as 'Destination file path (absolute or relative to allowed directories)', adding meaningful context about path formats and constraints beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Move or rename a file') and identifies the resource ('a file from source to destination'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_file' (destructive removal) and 'edit_file' (content modification) by focusing on relocation/renaming.

  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 clear context for usage through the 'Note' section (e.g., paths must be within allowed directories, fails if destination exists). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'rename' vs 'move' scenarios or compare to siblings like 'create_file' for new files.

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

• list_directoryA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses constraints (path must be within allowed roots, fails if not a directory), behavioral traits (entries sorted alphabetically, specific output format), and error handling (returns error message if failed). It covers key aspects like safety and output behavior 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?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note), front-loaded purpose, and every sentence adds value: no redundancy, with efficient bullet points for notes. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, constraints, behavior, and output format. It provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly without gaps.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'path' parameter as 'Directory path to list (absolute or relative to allowed directories)', clarifying scope and constraints. This adequately covers the single parameter's semantics.

  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 ('List') and resource ('contents of a directory'), specifying it provides 'type annotations' with '[DIR]' or '[FILE]' prefixes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'directory_tree' (which likely shows hierarchical structure) and 'list_allowed_directories' (which lists allowed roots rather than directory contents).

  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 clear context for when to use it: to list directory contents with type annotations. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by noting the sorted alphabetical format and error conditions, but does not explicitly name when to choose this over siblings like 'directory_tree' or 'search_files'.

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

• create_directoryA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behaviors: it creates parent directories if missing, doesn't error if the directory already exists, and has path restrictions (must be within allowed roots). It also mentions the return value (success/error message). The only minor gap is lack of explicit permission or rate limit details.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections clarify I/O, and the 'Note' bullets add critical behavioral details without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation with parent directories), no annotations, and an output schema that documents the return type, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and usage context, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'path': it's a directory path (str), can be absolute or relative to allowed directories, and has constraints (must be within allowed roots). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a directory') and resource ('directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_file' (creates files) and 'directory_tree' (lists structure). It explicitly mentions creating parent directories, which further differentiates its functionality from simple directory creation 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?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to create directories with parent creation) and includes a note about path constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'create_file' for files instead), which prevents a perfect score.

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

• read_text_fileA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key traits: path restrictions ('within allowed directory roots'), file format limitations ('Only reads UTF-8 text files'), error handling ('error message if failed'), and line numbering specifics ('1-indexed, inclusive'). It doesn't cover aspects like performance, memory usage, or exact error formats, but provides substantial operational context.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by organized sections (Args, Returns, Note). Every sentence adds value: the first states core purpose, the Args section details parameters, Returns explains output, and Note lists critical constraints. No redundant or vague language is present.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and key constraints (path restrictions, file format, line indexing). The output schema indicates a string return, and the description clarifies this includes error messages, providing full operational context without needing to explain low-level implementation details.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema: explains 'path' as 'absolute or relative to allowed directories', clarifies 'fromLine' and 'toLine' as optional, 1-indexed, inclusive line numbers, and ties parameters to functionality ('If line range specified, returns only those lines'). This transforms minimal schema into actionable understanding.

  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 specific action ('Read the contents of a UTF-8 text file') and resource ('text file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_multiple_files' (single vs. multiple files) and 'grep' (search vs. direct reading). It explicitly mentions the optional line range feature, which further differentiates its functionality.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool (reading UTF-8 text files with optional line ranges) and implicitly suggests alternatives through sibling tool names (e.g., 'read_multiple_files' for batch operations, 'grep' for searching). However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, such as avoiding it for binary files or when needing to edit files (use 'edit_file' instead).

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

• search_filesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 and does so effectively. It describes key behavioral traits: directory restrictions ('within allowed directory roots'), recursion behavior, respect for .gitignore, ignoring hidden files/folders, and return format (list for success, string for errors). This provides comprehensive operational context beyond basic functionality.

  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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Note) and every sentence earns its place. The initial statement is front-loaded with core functionality, followed by organized details. No wasted words while maintaining complete clarity.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, recursive search behavior) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, behavioral constraints, and error handling, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'dir' (directory to search, absolute/relative to allowed directories), 'pattern' (glob-style pattern for matching), and 'exclude' (optional glob-style pattern for exclusion). It provides concrete examples ('*.py', 'test_*') and clarifies the optional nature of 'exclude', adding significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for files by name pattern') and resource ('in a directory recursively'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_directory' (non-recursive listing) or 'grep' (content search). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  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 clear context about when to use this tool (recursive file search by name pattern) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage scenarios but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools like 'grep' for content-based searches.

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

• create_fileA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing key behavioral traits: it fails if the file exists (idempotency/error handling), creates parent directories automatically (side effects), and enforces path restrictions (security constraints). This goes beyond basic parameter documentation to explain how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Args, Returns, Note). Every sentence adds value: the Args section clarifies parameters, Returns sets expectations, and the Note covers critical behavioral nuances without redundancy.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, return value, and key behaviors (failure conditions, side effects, restrictions). The output schema handles return details, so the description focuses on contextual gaps effectively.

  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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'path' is explained as 'absolute or relative to allowed directories' with a note on restrictions, and 'content' is specified as 'UTF-8 text content'. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., line endings).

  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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'edit_file' (modifies existing) or 'create_directory' (creates folders). It specifies 'with specified content' to differentiate from tools that might create empty files.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool (to create a new file with content) and implicitly when not to use it (if the file already exists, use 'edit_file' instead). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'edit_file' for existing files, but the 'Fails if the file already exists' note strongly implies the distinction.

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

• edit_fileA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 thoroughly explains key behaviors: sequential application of edits, exact matching of 'oldText', atomic updates via temporary file, and the return format (unified diff or error message). This covers critical operational details beyond basic functionality.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (file editing with multiple parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and output expectations, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'path' as the file path with directory constraints, and 'edits' as a list of operations with 'oldText' and 'newText' keys, including details on matching and ordering. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Apply multiple text replacements to a file') and the resource ('a file'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_file (creation), delete_file (deletion), or read_text_file (reading). It precisely defines the tool's function beyond just the name 'edit_file'.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool (for applying text replacements to files) and includes notes on prerequisites (path restrictions, UTF-8 requirement). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using create_file for new files instead), which prevents a perfect score.

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

• grepA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses key behavioral traits: recursive searching, UTF-8 text-only limitation, respect for .gitignore, skipping lock files, output format details, Python regex syntax, and directory access restrictions. This goes well beyond basic functionality.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Note) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential details without redundancy. It's comprehensive yet efficiently organized.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (regex search with constraints), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, output format, behavioral constraints, and technical details. The output schema exists, so return values are documented, making this fully adequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  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 fully. It does: it explains all 3 parameters (dir, pattern, exclude) with semantic meaning, including dir constraints ('within allowed directory roots'), pattern type ('regular expression'), and exclude purpose ('file pattern to exclude'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for text patterns inside files using regular expressions.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('text patterns inside files'), and method ('using regular expressions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_files' (likely filename-based) and 'read_text_file' (file reading).

  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 clear context for when to use this tool: for searching file contents with regex patterns. It implicitly distinguishes from 'search_files' (which likely searches filenames) and 'read_text_file' (which reads entire files), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

• read_multiple_filesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 effectively describes key traits: the operation reads files (implying read-only, non-destructive), specifies constraints (UTF-8 text, allowed directories), and details error handling ('If any file fails to read, entire operation returns error string'). This covers safety, limitations, and failure modes adequately for a tool with no annotations.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent section (Args, Returns, Note) adds value without redundancy. The bullet points in the Note section are efficient and clear, making the text easy to parse with zero wasted sentences.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (batch file reading with constraints), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and behavioral notes like constraints and error handling, leaving no significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the basic schema: it explains that 'paths' is a list of file paths, clarifies they can be 'absolute or relative to allowed directories', and ties this to the tool's constraints. This provides essential context not present in the schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema 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 specific action ('Read multiple UTF-8 text files at once') and the resource ('text files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_text_file' (singular) and 'search_files' (searching rather than reading). It explicitly describes the output format ('mapping of paths to contents'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from alternatives.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool (reading multiple text files simultaneously) and includes constraints like 'All paths must be within allowed directory roots' and 'All files must be UTF-8 text files'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'read_text_file' for single files or 'grep' for searching content, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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