Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_memoB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates a memo and returns JSON, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

  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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Create a new memo' statement is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

  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 that there's an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and the description compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, this is adequate. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

  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 value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'content' supports Markdown and defines the three possible values for 'visibility' (PUBLIC, PROTECTED, PRIVATE) along with the default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 creates a new memo, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_memo' or explain when to use this versus 'search_memos' for finding existing memos.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_memo', 'search_memos', or 'update_memo'.

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

• update_memoB
  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 but only states it 'updates an existing memo' without disclosing behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, error conditions, or rate limits. The return format is mentioned but lacks detail.

  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 with clear sections for Args and Returns. The opening sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some minor verbosity exists in listing all parameter details that could be inferred from schema, but overall structure is efficient.

  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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces need to explain return values, but more guidance on usage and transparency would improve completeness.

  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 clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters: memo_uid identifies the target, content is new text, visibility has enumerated values, and pinned controls pinning status. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

  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 'update' and resource 'memo', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_memo' beyond the obvious difference in operation type, missing explicit comparison.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_memo' or 'get_memo'. The description simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

• search_memosA
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns: JSON string containing the list of matching memos,' which adds some context about the output format. However, it doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination details beyond limit/offset, error handling, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bulleted 'Args' section that efficiently documents each parameter, and ends with a 'Returns' statement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

  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 complexity (a search tool with 6 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and mentions the return format. However, it lacks behavioral details like read-only confirmation, error cases, or pagination context, which would be helpful despite the output schema. For a tool with no annotations, it does well but has minor gaps.

  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 all 6 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining what each filter does (e.g., 'query: Text to search for in memo content,' 'visibility: Filter by visibility (PUBLIC, PROTECTED, PRIVATE)'), including default values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting parameter purposes and usage.

  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 as 'Search for memos with optional filters,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_memo' (which likely retrieves a single memo by ID) or 'create_memo'/'update_memo' (which are write operations). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 when to prefer 'search_memos' over 'get_memo' (e.g., for filtering vs. direct ID lookup) or any prerequisites like authentication needs. There's only implied usage based on the tool name and parameters, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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

• get_memoA
  4/5.0
  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 mentions the tool retrieves memo details but lacks information on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., what happens if the UID is invalid), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, starting with the core purpose followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or permissions, which are not addressed in annotations or output schema.

  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 beyond the input schema by explaining that memo_uid is 'The UID of the memo to retrieve' and provides an example ('e.g., "abc123"'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could detail format constraints or validation rules more explicitly.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific memo by its UID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_memo, search_memos, and update_memo. 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by specifying retrieval by UID, suggesting it's for when you know the exact memo identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_memos, which might be for broader queries, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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