Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• k4g_flag_for_reviewA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description explicitly notes that it changes the application's review_status and is not read-only, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also discloses error handling behavior for a non-existent ID. While annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds value by specifying the exact field change and the specific return value (updated application record as JSON).

  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. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the behavioral change (review_status), gives usage guidance, lists parameters, states the return value, and includes error handling. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure (description → behavior → usage → args → return → errors) is logical and skimmable. No fluff or redundancy.

  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?

  Given the moderate complexity (three simple string parameters, no output schema, but a clear behavioral change), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, the state-changing effect, return format, and error case. The sibling tools are search/list/read operations, so this flag tool stands out clearly. No significant gaps remain for an agent to understand what this tool does and when to invoke it.

  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 already has 100% coverage of the three parameters (id, reviewer, note) with detailed descriptions, including formats and constraints (e.g., minLength=1, maxLength). The description's 'Args' section minimally reiterates the parameter names without adding substantive new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't offer additional parameter insights.

  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 what the tool does: 'Mark an application as flagged_for_discussion and attach a reviewer note' – a specific verb (flag) targeting a specific resource (application). It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like k4g_search_applications or k4g_get_application by focusing on the flagging action and the context of needing a second opinion or panel discussion.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'when an application needs a second opinion or a full-panel discussion rather than a solo decision'. This effectively implies an alternative (solo decision) but does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative. The context is clear and actionable, though it could be improved by referencing specific sibling tools for comparison.

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

• k4g_get_applicationA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false? Actually readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by documenting the exact error message for a missing ID, the return format (JSON full application record including notes array), and the prerequisite to search first. This exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

  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 with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Error Handling. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose, and every section provides useful information without filler.

  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?

  For a single-parameter read operation, the description fully covers parameter usage, return shape, error behavior, and how to find the correct ID. The annotations cover safety, and the description is complete enough to use without additional 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the id parameter with an example and minLength. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema, so it adds minimal new semantic value beyond the structured field.

  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 states 'Fetch full detail for a single application by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions including reviewer notes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like k4g_search_applications, k4g_list_pending_review, and k4g_flag_for_review.

  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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (fetch detail for a single application by ID) and explicitly directs users to k4g_search_applications first if they need the correct ID. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it relative to all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

• k4g_list_pending_reviewA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it filters by specific statuses and does not include reviewed applications. It also mentions the sorting order of results. No contradiction found.

  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 clear paragraphs for purpose, usage, arguments, and examples. Every sentence adds value, not redundant. Front-loaded with critical information.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description accurately summarizes the return format. Given the tool's moderate complexity and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete and appropriate. It also covers all parameters and usage patterns.

  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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds behavioral meaning, such as 'unassigned_only' showing applications nobody owns and the filtering effect of 'assigned_reviewer'. Schema coverage is 100%, so description complements rather than repeats.

  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 tool's purpose: listing applications pending a decision with specific review_status values. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pending items and explicitly excluding reviewed ones.

  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?

  It provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to answer 'what's stuck in the queue') and what it excludes. It also gives behavioral examples for using filters. Although it doesn't state when to use alternatives, the context is explicit and sufficient.

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

• k4g_search_applicationsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it searches across all applications in the current cycle, returns a specific JSON shape, and reinforces that it does not modify data. This exceeds the baseline but is not a 5 because it omits details like result ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

  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 with clear sections (overview, args, returns, examples, exclusions). It is front-loaded with the purpose, every sentence serves a function, and the content is comprehensive without being bloated. Despite being longer than typical tool descriptions, the structure makes it highly scannable and useful.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It documents the full return payload shape, parameter semantics, example usage, and relationships to sibling tools. With rich annotations and a thorough description, the agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value via concrete examples ('Which alt-protein applications scored 7 or higher on impact?' -> food_sector='alt-protein', min_impact_score=7) and clarifies that query matches org name, founder name, or one-liner. This goes beyond simple schema repetition and earns a 4.

  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 and resource: 'Search the incubator application pipeline by text, sector, stage, or score.' It also specifies scope ('all applications in the current cycle') and explicitly contrasts with k4g_get_application for when an application ID is already available, making sibling differentiation strong.

  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?

  Usage guidance is explicit and thorough. It names alternatives (k4g_flag_for_review for modifications, k4g_get_application when an ID is known), provides example natural-language queries with parameter mappings, and includes an explicit 'Don't use when' section.

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