Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_summaryB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the action ('Delete') but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting other data), or provides error handling. The mention of a 'confirmation message' in returns is helpful but minimal. More behavioral context is needed 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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  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 complexity (simple deletion with one parameter), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter meaning, and return type. However, with no annotations and an output schema (which handles return structure), it lacks behavioral context like permanence or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning of 'filename' as 'Name of the summary file to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., file extension, case sensitivity) or constraints beyond what's implied. Given the single parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 ('Delete') and resource ('a chat summary file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_summaries' and 'summarize_chat' by focusing on deletion rather than listing or creation. However, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent deletion or reversible, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the filename from 'list_summaries'), error conditions (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• list_summariesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'recent' summaries and returns files with creation dates, but lacks details on what 'recent' means (e.g., time-based criteria), how ordering works, error handling, or permissions needed. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the others detail inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

  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 (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return overview. However, it lacks behavioral details like ordering or error handling, which would be beneficial even with an output schema, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit,' explaining it's the 'Maximum number of summaries to list' with a default of 10. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title and type), the description fully compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default value, going beyond what the schema provides.

  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's purpose: 'List recent chat summaries from the notes directory.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('chat summaries'), and location ('notes directory'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'summarize_chat' (which creates summaries) or 'delete_summary' (which removes them), though the 'list' vs 'create/delete' distinction is implied.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'summarize_chat' for creating summaries or 'delete_summary' for removal, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., existing summaries in the directory). Usage is implied by the action 'list,' but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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

• summarize_large_chatB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 describes the chunking and summarization process, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., processing time, rate limits), error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid input), or side effects (e.g., whether summaries are stored persistently). The mention of 'Returns: Information about the chunked summaries created' is vague and doesn't specify format or content.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by a clear breakdown of arguments and returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more seamlessly into the narrative flow.

  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 complexity (chunking and summarizing large histories) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the process and parameters well, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., input format requirements), limitations (e.g., maximum size), or integration with sibling tools like 'delete_summary' or 'list_summaries'. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail returns, but behavioral gaps remain.

  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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'chat_history' as 'The large chat conversation text to summarize', 'title' as 'Optional title for the summary', 'chunk_size' as 'Size of each chunk in characters (default: 50,000)', and 'overlap' as 'Overlap between chunks in characters (default: 5,000)'. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail units or constraints beyond defaults.

  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's purpose: 'Handle extremely large chat histories by chunking them into manageable pieces. Each chunk gets its own summary, then creates a master summary.' This specifies the verb (chunk and summarize), resource (large chat histories), and method (chunking with individual and master summaries). It distinguishes from 'summarize_chat' by emphasizing handling 'extremely large' histories through chunking, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

  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 when to use this tool by stating it's for 'extremely large chat histories' and involves chunking, suggesting it should be used for large inputs where 'summarize_chat' might not suffice. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'summarize_chat' or when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like 'list_summaries' or 'delete_summary'.

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

• summarize_chatA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it creates files (implied mutation/write operation), specifies output format (markdown), and mentions return values (path and preview). However, it doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or file system implications (e.g., overwriting).

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section that efficiently documents parameters and output. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

  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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and output (with an output schema present). However, for a tool that creates files, it could better address behavioral aspects like file naming, location, or error handling to be fully complete.

  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 significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining all 5 parameters: 'chat_history' (conversation text to summarize), 'title' (used in filename), 'summary_style' (with enum values), and two boolean flags with their purposes. This fully documents parameter semantics, though it doesn't specify format details like filename conventions.

  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 ('Summarize chat history and save it as a markdown file') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'summarize_large_chat' (implied for larger chats), 'delete_summary', and 'list_summaries'. It specifies both the processing (summarize) and output (save as markdown file) aspects.

  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 summarize chat history into a markdown file), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'summarize_large_chat' for specific cases. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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