Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• branch_nameA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It shows one example output but doesn't disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., slugification rules, truncation, handling of special characters). The schema mentions truncation for maxLength, but the description itself doesn't add behavioral context beyond the example.

  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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a high-value example. Every word earns its place, and the example greatly improves comprehension without extra fluff.

  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 straightforward generation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and output format via example. It doesn't explain the exact convention rules in detail, but the example sufficiently conveys the expected behavior for most use cases.

  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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how type, id, and title combine in the example, but it doesn't elaborate on maxLength or separator beyond what the schema states.

  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 ('Generate') and resource ('git branch name'), clearly stating the inputs (change type, ticket id, title). The concrete example disambiguates the exact behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools like commit_message and pr_checklist.

  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 makes it obvious when to use this tool (any time a branch name is needed) and provides an example that shows the transformation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes, so the usage context is clear without exclusions.

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

• commit_messageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses key behaviors: validation, normalization, returning structured fields, and flagging specific issue categories (type, length, imperative mood). It does not mention side effects or authorization, but as a read-only validation tool this is acceptable, and the return details provide meaningful transparency.

  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, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value—return shape and validation flags are included without redundant explanation.

  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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It could mention broader context (e.g., intended workflow) but that's not essential for correct invocation.

  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%, so all parameter meanings are already available in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond that, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

  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 'validate and normalize' and explicitly references the Conventional Commit format, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools branch_name and pr_checklist. It also outlines the return structure, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

  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 intended use case is implied by the description—validating commit messages—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over branch_name or pr_checklist. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• pr_checklistA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool generates (summary, change list grouped by conventional type, checklist) but does not explicitly confirm whether the tool has side effects (e.g., only produces text vs. modifying PRs) or mention error conditions. This is a moderate gap given the absence of 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently front-loads the verb and resource, then defines inputs and output structure. Every clause provides useful information without redundancy, 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?

  The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the description adequately explains the tool's function and the composition of the generated Markdown. It doesn't mention preconditions or edge cases, but for a generative tool with no annotations, this is reasonably complete.

  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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, and the description adds context by explaining how commits contribute to the summary/change list and how changedFiles affect the body. However, it essentially restates the parameter purposes without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action verb 'Build' and identifies the resource as a 'Markdown pull-request body' with clear inputs ('a list of commits' and optional 'changed files'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like branch_name and commit_message, which focus on naming conventions rather than PR content generation.

  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 the primary use case—generating a PR body from commits—and the optional changedFiles parameter hints at when to include additional context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the sibling tools serve obviously distinct purposes, making the selection context reasonably clear.

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