Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• debug_recordC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool operates 'silently' (implying no user notification) and is 'AUTO-call' (suggesting automated invocation), but doesn't describe what 'record' means operationally, whether data is persisted, what format is used, or any side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex input schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise with two brief sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about 'AUTO-call' could be more clearly integrated with the first, and the overall brevity comes at the cost of completeness for such a parameter-rich tool.

  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 the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, nested objects in the input schema, and an output schema exists, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of the complex 'context' object, the meaning of parameters, or what the tool actually does beyond 'record'. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should provide more operational context for proper tool selection.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (3 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'context', 'cause', 'solution', 'project_directory', or 'tags' represent or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose as 'Record debug solution' which indicates it logs debugging information, but it's vague about what exactly gets recorded and how. The phrase 'AUTO-call silently after fixing errors' adds context about usage timing but doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like debug_search or learning_session.

  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 implied usage guidance with 'AUTO-call silently after fixing errors' which suggests this should be invoked automatically after error resolution, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like debug_search or when NOT to use it. No prerequisites or comparison to siblings is provided.

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

• term_getC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'Get unshown programming terms' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. The agent must infer behavior from the name and limited description, which is insufficient for a mutation or data retrieval tool.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise with two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and domains. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by listing parameters).

  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 the tool has an output schema (which covers return values), the description's gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral transparency are partially mitigated. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it still lacks completeness for a tool with three parameters and unclear behavioral traits.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'domain' parameter with examples but doesn't explain 'project_directory' or 'count'. This leaves two parameters undocumented, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unshown programming terms'), and it provides domain examples like 'programming_basics, algorithms, web_development, etc.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., debug_record, debug_search, learning_session), which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It mentions domains but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

• learning_sessionB
  3.4/5.0
  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 adds valuable context: 'Blocks until done' indicates this is a synchronous, blocking operation that may take time, which is crucial for an agent to understand execution flow. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

  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 and front-loaded: it's a single sentence with three key pieces of information (what it is, when to use it, behavioral trait). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 the tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers usage and blocking behavior but ignores all parameters and doesn't explain the interactive quiz functionality in detail. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should provide more context about inputs and quiz mechanics to be fully helpful.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters—it doesn't mention project_directory, summary, reasoning, quizzes, focus_areas, or timeout. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool is an 'Interactive quiz card' which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about what specific action it performs. It mentions 'Call ONLY when user says 'quiz me' or 'test me'' which adds context but doesn't clearly specify the verb+resource combination (e.g., 'initiates a quiz session' or 'presents quiz questions'). It distinguishes from siblings by its interactive nature, but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

  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 usage guidelines: 'Call ONLY when user says 'quiz me' or 'test me''. This clearly states when to use the tool (in response to specific user prompts) and implies when not to use it (for other purposes). It doesn't name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (debug_record, debug_search, term_get) are unrelated to quizzes, this is sufficient for strong guidance.

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

• debug_searchA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'AUTO-call silently' behavior, which is a key trait not in the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'debug history' entails, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a search tool with multiple parameters.

  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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to understand without unnecessary details.

  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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and auto-call behavior but misses parameter details and behavioral traits. The output schema might help with return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use, scoring it as minimally adequate.

  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 all 5 parameters. It only implies 'query' through 'Search' and 'error_type' through 'on errors,' but doesn't explain 'project_directory,' 'tags,' or 'limit.' This insufficient coverage results in a low score, as most parameters remain undocumented.

  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's purpose: 'Search debug history for past solutions.' It specifies the resource (debug history) and the action (search for solutions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'debug_record' or 'learning_session', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 usage context with 'AUTO-call silently on errors,' indicating it should be invoked automatically when errors occur. This gives explicit guidance on when to use it, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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