Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• verify_proxy_savingsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses read-only repo behavior, the append of a versioned run record to local history, non-idempotent output, live network access gated by live+confirmCost, and failure/refusal returning isError=true. This far exceeds basic safety disclosure.

  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 long but organized into purpose, usage, side effects, parameters, and return sections. Every paragraph carries necessary context, though it repeats some schema parameter details. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations/output schema, it is appropriately sized and structured.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description correctly enumerates the return structure (run_id, records, tt03/tt05 maps). It also covers prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, and live-mode safety, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the array form for TT04 cross-tool comparison, the live/confirmCost gating semantics, example calls, and the headroom-not-yet-runnable nuance. However, it largely restates the schema details rather than introducing substantial new parameter-level 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 opens with a specific verb ('Runs an independent, adversarial verification') and names the target resource (AI-coding-agent context-reduction proxy) and the method (TT01-TT05 engine, real tokenizer, bundled corpus). It clearly distinguishes this from a vendor benchmark rerun and from general token counting, which satisfies the top score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states 'Call this when an agent needs a trustworthy...' and provides concrete examples ('before recommending a proxy, evaluating a version upgrade, or checking a CI regression'). It also gives exclusions: 'not for general token counting or for proxies outside {rtk, headroom}' and explains the headroom limitation. This is model usage guidance.

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