Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_standardsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It only states 'returns' data, implying read-only, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond basic purpose.

  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?

  Description is well-structured with purpose first, then usage guidance. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise; however, every sentence adds 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and filtering. It explicitly states the return type (coding standards, etc.), which 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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats the same filtering examples as the schema parameter description. No additional meaning added beyond what schema already provides.

  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 returns coding standards, style guides, and best practices, and specifies the action ('checking conventions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (devscontext_status, get_task_context, search_context) which cover different domains.

  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 states when to use: before/during implementation, when user asks about conventions. Provides example queries. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear given sibling tools.

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

• get_task_contextA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the scope (fetching multiple content types) and hints at caching via 'refresh' parameter, but lacks details on expected latency, required permissions, error handling, or what happens if the ticket doesn't exist.

  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 sentences: first sentence states purpose and what it provides, second sentence gives specific usage triggers. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  Lists the types of content it synthesizes (requirements, comments, docs, standards, etc.), which is useful but incomplete. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format (e.g., structured summary vs. raw text) but does not. Also lacks details on error states or prerequisites.

  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 both parameters described. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond the schema (task_id format, refresh behavior). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional parameter 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 uses a specific verb 'fetches and synthesizes' and clearly identifies the resource (Jira ticket). It lists multiple content types (requirements, comments, transcripts, docs, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_standards (only standards) or search_context (general search).

  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 states when to use: 'when starting work on a Jira ticket' and provides concrete trigger phrases ('work on PROJ-123', 'start TICKET-456'). Advises to 'call this FIRST', giving strong context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or directly contrast with siblings.

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

• search_contextA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, description must carry the full burden. It discloses search sources (Jira, transcripts, documentation) and confirms input is natural language. However, it does not mention response format, scope limitations, or any behavioral traits like read-only nature. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 efficiently conveying purpose, examples, and input format. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers sources and usage examples adequately. Could mention what kind of results are returned, but not essential for selection decision.

  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% (single query parameter with description 'Natural language question or search terms'). The description essentially repeats this as 'Input is a natural language question', adding no new meaning 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?

  Description clearly states it's for freeform questions about codebase, architecture, or past decisions, searching across Jira, transcripts, and documentation. Distinguishes from siblings like devscontext_status or get_standards by emphasizing freeform natural language queries.

  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 provides example questions ('how do we handle errors?', etc.) indicating when to use. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the examples give clear context for appropriate use cases.

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

• devscontext_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks configuration, source connectivity, and health status, implying a read-only diagnostic operation. This is adequate for a simple status check.

  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 sentences, each earning its place: first states action and resources, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and when to use it.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool checks (configuration, connectivity, health) beyond the empty 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 verb 'Check' and the resources: configuration, source connectivity, health status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_standards, get_task_context, and search_context by focusing on diagnostics rather than retrieving specific data.

  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 says to use it 'to verify your setup or debug connection issues.' This provides clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it, but for a health check tool, this is sufficient.

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