Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• forgetA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states action (delete) and fuzzy matching, but does not disclose permanence, confirmation behavior, error handling, or what happens on multiple fuzzy matches.

  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 short sentences, no wasted words, directly conveys purpose and usage. Appropriate length for such a simple tool.

  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?

  Tool is simple with 2 optional params and no output schema. Description covers core action and usage trigger but omits return behavior, error cases, or confirmation messages.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description adds minimal extra value ('id from inspect', 'fuzzy content match') but not enough to raise score above baseline 3.

  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 'Delete a memory by ID or content match (fuzzy)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (create) and 'recall' (retrieve) by focusing on deletion and fuzzy matching.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use when the user says to forget something', which is a clear usage context. However, no guidance on when not to use or alternatives like 'update' or 'clear all'.

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

• inspectA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes what it shows (all memories, various stats) and implies read-only behavior. No annotations, but no contradictions. Could mention no side effects explicitly.

  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 purpose, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple debug tool with no parameters. Could mention limitations or what is not shown, but complete enough.

  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?

  No parameters in input schema, so baseline of 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, which is fine.

  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?

  Clearly states it is a debug view showing all memories with specific fields (decay status, relevance scores, ages, health stats, category breakdown), differentiating it from sibling tools like forget, recall, remember.

  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?

  Implied usage for debugging, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools provide context but description lacks direct alternatives.

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

• recallA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses important side effects: auto-reinforces strong matches and auto-prunes dead memories. This adds behavioral context beyond a simple search.

  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 purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

  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?

  No output schema and no description of return format or error cases. While side effects are noted, the output nature is vaguely described as 'get all active memories'. Incomplete for full tool understanding.

  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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining empty query returns all active memories ranked by relevance, which supplements schema descriptions.

  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 'Search memories by topic', specifying verb and resource. Leaving query empty for all memories distinguishes from sibling tools (forget, inspect, remember).

  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?

  Description implies usage for searching memories and provides context for empty query, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. However, sibling tool names clarify scope.

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

• rememberA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals auto-categorization, auto-deduplication, and category-specific durations. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects (e.g., whether data is overwritten) or failure modes.

  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 extremely concise, with every sentence providing essential information. It is front-loaded with an imperative to use the tool, making it immediately clear.

  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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, categories, durations, and automatic behaviors comprehensively. No critical gaps remain.

  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 value beyond the schema by explaining category durations and auto-detection, thus enriching the meaning of the 'category' parameter.

  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: remembering user preferences, facts, corrections, and recurring interests. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (forget, inspect, recall) by being the one for storing new information.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to call the tool ('whenever the user reveals a preference, fact about themselves, correction, or recurring interest') and also explains auto-categorization and auto-deduplication behavior, leaving no ambiguity.

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