Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• prism.synthesis_contractA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviors. The description adds 'Deterministic; generates no prose,' which discloses output behavior and reinforces the lack of side effects, providing value beyond the structured annotations.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous content.

  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 tool with an output schema and two optional parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and deterministic nature. However, the lack of parameter explanations prevents a perfect score, as the agent may be unsure how to populate 'preflight' or 'measurement'.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'preflight' and 'measurement' parameters. It does not explain their meaning or usage at all, leaving a significant gap. The description only covers the tool's output, not its inputs.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource (rules for the final answer), enumerating concrete content: conflicts to disclose, distinct claims to preserve, and prohibited shortcuts. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing determinism and no prose, making its role unique.

  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 states the clear context: it provides rules the host must follow when writing the final answer. This gives a clear usage scenario, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, but the context is sufficient for typical selection.

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

• prism.measureA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it reads only the verified local model bundle and supplied input, reaches no network, mutates nothing, and has bounded runtime. It also clarifies its reporting philosophy ('Reports conflict, never truth'), giving a richer picture of what the tool does and guarantees. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: measurement scope, runtime bound, and safety/philosophy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, uses no filler words, and is highly scannable. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  The description covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, and input cardinality, which is strong given the annotations and existence of an output schema. However, the opaque request parameter is not explained, and there is no guidance on how the tool interacts with sibling tools (e.g., when to use prism.preflight vs this). This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

  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?

  The schema has a single opaque request object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage. The description provides a hint that the input involves '2-5 candidate claim packets,' but it does not explain how to structure the request object, what fields are expected, or how the claim packets should be represented. The description insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Measure') with a precise resource ('contradictions, scope divergence, duplicates, and internal conflicts across 2-5 candidate claim packets'). It clearly distinguishes itself by stating it reports conflict, never truth, which separates it from truth-assessment tools. This is a strong, specific purpose statement.

  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 the tool (to measure conflicts across 2-5 claim packets) and what it guarantees (bounded runtime, no mutation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like prism.preflight or prism.synthesis_contract, so it lacks exclusions but still conveys the tool's niche.

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

• prism.preflightA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral details beyond these: 'Deterministic and offline', 'reads packaged registry data only: no user-project files, no network, no credentials'. This tells the agent exactly what side effects (none) and data access patterns exist, providing significant added transparency without contradicting the annotations.

  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, each earning its place: the first states the core action and output, the second clarifies the safety and deterministic nature. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 simple complexity, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines the output (claim-packet contract) and the input context (task). It also mentions constraints (offline, no credentials) and implies the tool is meant for preflight planning before measurement. The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail return values. A minor gap is that it does not specify any prerequisites or expected input format, but this is not critical for a preflight helper.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description ties 'task' to the selection process and '3-5 useful perspectives' hints that max_perspectives controls the output count, but 'mode' is completely unexplained. It provides some semantic linkage but does not fully compensate for all three parameters, especially the mysterious 'mode' with a default of 'standard'.

  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 uses specific verbs ('Select' and 'return') and names the concrete outputs: '3-5 useful perspectives' and 'the claim-packet contract'. This clearly differentiates from siblings like prism.measure (which likely executes measurements) and prism.synthesis_contract (which may define the contract format rather than select perspectives). The scope is explicitly bounded to a preflight role.

  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 this tool is appropriate: it is deterministic, offline, and reads only packaged registry data, making it safe for preflight use without external dependencies. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like prism.measure or prism.synthesis_contract, nor does it give exclusions ('use X instead'). The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• prism.healthA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it enumerates exactly what shallow and deep modes verify (contracts, perspective registry, artifact hashes, CPU provider, synthetic inference) and states the tool does not scan the project/environment. This complements the readOnly/idempotent hints with concrete operational context.

  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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a concise breakdown of shallow vs deep, and an important limitation. It is front-loaded, with no redundant wording or 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-boolean parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior (shallow/deep), scope (local health), and a key exclusion (no project/environment scan). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

  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 only parameter 'deep' has no schema description (coverage 0%), but the description fully explains the contrast between shallow and deep modes, making the parameter's meaning explicit and actionable. This goes well beyond the raw 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?

  The description opens with 'Report local health,' a specific verb and resource, and then precisely defines the two modes (shallow and deep) and what each checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prism.preflight and prism.measure, which are named differently and serve different purposes.

  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 explains the two modes (shallow vs deep) and includes an explicit exclusion ('Never scans the user's project or environment'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over its siblings, though the distinct health-check purpose implies appropriate usage.

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