Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• agent_buildC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Create' and 'WORM seal' but does not explain side effects (e.g., persistence, overwrite rules), required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The tool's mutation nature is implied but unsupported with specifics.

  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?

  Two sentences, no extra words. The first sentence captures purpose, the second lists classes. Efficient and front-loaded.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (the manifest?), how WORM seal is applied, or any post-creation behavior. The mention of WORM seal is defined nowhere in the schema, causing confusion.

  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%, meeting the baseline. The description repeats the enum values for agent_class but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. No additional context for capabilities or model.

  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 the resource 'sovereign agent manifest', listing key components (class, capabilities, model, WORM seal) and available classes. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, such as ada_contract_generate or sovereign_inject, which could create similar manifests.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. The description lists classes but does not advise on selection criteria or context for use.

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

• sovereign_injectC
  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 must disclose behavior but only offers architectural jargon ('BOB orchestrator', 'bypassing context window') without explaining side effects, resource requirements, or return format.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is relatively short but the second sentence adds architectural context that may not be essential for invocation, making it slightly less concise and focused.

  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 output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with sparse schema descriptions, the description lacks details on output format, prerequisites, and expected results, hindering correct use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal; the tool description restates the parameters without adding meaning, examples, or constraints beyond the 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?

  Description clearly states the tool generates a Mamba SSM injection specification from a Lean 4 theorem and Ada contract, making the purpose explicit and distinct from siblings.

  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 versus alternatives like ada_contract_generate or twin_chat; the description implies usage when an injection specification is needed but does not provide explicit context or exclusions.

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

• worm_readB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation with no destructive effects, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or any side effects. The output is described only vaguely ('returns recent events and chain validity').

  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 unnecessary words. Efficient and front-loaded with the key action.

  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?

  For a simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary function. Context about the chain and verification could be expanded, but it's adequate.

  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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that verification is optional, which is already in the schema's default.

  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 reads the SnapKitty WORM chain with optional verification, and returns events and validity. It distinguishes from siblings like worm_seal (likely write) by specifying 'Read'.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The optional verification is mentioned but no context on when to choose other tools like worm_seal.

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

• ada_contract_generateB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool defines capabilities and trust level and WORM-seals the contract, but without annotations, it fails to provide deeper behavioral details such as side effects, reversibility, or required permissions.

  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 concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key elements.

  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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's function but lacks context about return values, storage, or relationship to sibling tools, limiting 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?

  The schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds that capabilities and trust level are defined in the contract, but does not explain agent_class or the meaning of enum values in trust_level or agent_class, leaving semantic gaps.

  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 generates an Ada-syntax sovereign governance contract for an agent, specifying permitted capabilities, trust level, and WORM-sealing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like worm_seal or sovereign_inject, which could cause confusion.

  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., worm_seal, sovereign_inject). The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• worm_sealB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (append-only, tamper-evident, chained) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, limits, or return values.

  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?

  Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

  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?

  For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but does not explain return behavior or complete operational 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no specific parameter-level meaning 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 seals a payload into a WORM chain using SHA-256, specifying the action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like worm_read, but the write nature is evident.

  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 versus alternatives. It does not mention circumstances for use or exclusion, leaving the agent without context for selection decisions.

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

• twin_chatA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that responses are WORM-sealed and requires a local Ollama instance. However, it doesn't explain error behavior, latency implications, or whether it modifies state. The information is basic but present.

  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?

  Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the main action, the second adds key behavioral and prerequisite info. Highly concise.

  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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about response format, error handling, and how it relates to sibling tools like sovereign_inject or worm_seal. It is barely adequate.

  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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds context like 'sovereign digital twin' and 'twin identity' but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it's for chatting with a local Ollama model as a sovereign digital twin. The mention of WORM-sealed response distinguishes it from generic chat tools. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like worm_read or worm_seal, which also deal with WORM data.

  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 provides a prerequisite (Ollama running locally) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like sovereign_inject or worm_read. No when-not or explicit context is given.

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