Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• n3mo_get_blast_radiusC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, performance considerations, or side effects. Terms like 'impact analysis' imply a computation with potential complexity, but no behavioral details are given.

  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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no unnecessary information, and it reads clearly. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing what the tool retrieves) could improve it, but it is largely effective.

  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 complexity of blast radius analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a graph, list of affected symbols), how the depth parameter affects results, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools suggest a suite, but this description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand the tool's full functionality.

  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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (symbol_name, depth, project_path). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'class or function', which aligns with symbol_name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already describes parameters well.

  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 tool queries 'impact analysis / blast radius' of a code symbol, specifically class or function. It uses a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'impact analysis / blast radius', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dependency or file symbol queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools.

  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 (e.g., n3mo_get_dependencies or n3mo_search_symbol). There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or examples. The description only states the tool's function without context for appropriate usage.

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

• n3mo_get_dependenciesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves—missing details on indexing requirements, scope (direct vs transitive), error handling, or performance characteristics.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning indexed requirement) without losing conciseness.

  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?

  Without output schema, the description should explain return format or behavior; it does not. Leaves ambiguity about whether dependencies are direct or transitive, and whether indexing is required.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'forward-dependency graph' context but no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('external symbols that a given symbol calls'), with the clarifying phrase 'forward-dependency graph' that distinguishes it from likely reverse-dependency siblings like n3mo_get_blast_radius.

  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 the tool is for exploring forward dependencies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., n3mo_get_blast_radius, n3mo_search_symbol) or prerequisites like prior indexing.

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

• n3mo_indexB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states the action without disclosing side effects, duration, or permissions. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

  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, no redundancy, directly states the tool's purpose.

  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?

  Simple tool with one param and no output schema; description covers the core function but lacks detail on behavior or return value.

  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%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Parameter 'project_path' is adequately described in 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 a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('active workspace folder'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that query rather than initiate actions.

  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 on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., n3mo_get_file_symbols). Does not mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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

• n3mo_search_symbolB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool searches for the 'exact location and definition' of a symbol, but does not clarify what that entails (e.g., file path, line number, or code snippet). The description is adequate but lacks detail about the search behavior or output 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 a single sentence of 14 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information or redundant phrases.

  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?

  Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., file path, line number, code snippet). It also does not mention that the codebase must be indexed beforehand. Given the lack of an output schema, this information is essential for the agent to use the tool correctly.

  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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not elaborate on the 'project_path' parameter or provide examples). Baseline score is 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 verb 'Search', the resource 'indexed codebase', and the object 'symbol (class or function)', with the aim of finding its exact location and definition. It is distinct from sibling tools like n3mo_get_dependencies or n3mo_get_file_symbols, which have different purposes.

  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 such as n3mo_get_file_symbols or n3mo_get_blast_radius. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., the codebase must be indexed first) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

• n3mo_get_file_symbolsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action without mentioning performance, side effects, error handling, or what happens if the file is not found or contains no symbols.

  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 sentence that is direct and free of extraneous words. It front-loads the essential information efficiently.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description barely covers the minimum. It omits return value or error conditions, which an agent would need for correct 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely repeats the concept of inspecting a file.

  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 the resource 'symbols (classes/functions)' from a specific file. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like n3mo_search_symbol (which searches across the workspace) and n3mo_get_dependencies (which finds dependencies).

  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 for inspecting a single file's symbols, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n3mo_search_symbol or n3mo_get_blast_radius. No exclusions or context are given.

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