Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_noteC
  2.6/5.0
  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 retrieves note details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the noteId is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly.

  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?

  The description is a single, straightforward sentence: 'Get details of a specific note'. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key details upfront, but it's concise enough to earn a high score.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error scenarios, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional context.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'noteId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the note to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get details of a specific note' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'note', making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'create_note', which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that 'get_note' is for retrieving a single note by ID, while 'search_notes' might be for multiple notes or filtering, leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit help.

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

• create_noteC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns note ID), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of a mutation operation, more context is needed for completeness.

  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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new note in TriliumNext'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_note' or explain when to create versus update, which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_note' or 'search_notes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• search_notesC
  2.9/5.0
  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 searches for notes but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), error conditions, or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., note metadata, content snippets), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances like sorting or filtering options. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with details like constraints and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of query syntax or result ordering, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 clearly states the action ('Search for notes') and the target resource ('in TriliumNext'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_note' (which might retrieve a specific note) or mention what makes this search distinct.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_note' or 'create_note'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether notes must exist or be accessible, and doesn't mention any exclusions or typical use cases.

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

• update_noteC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it updates content without disclosing behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the update overwrites or merges content, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action and resource. 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.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, or error cases, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

  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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('noteId' and 'content') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('the content of an existing note'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'get_note' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_note' or 'get_note'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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