Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete-noteB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the deletion action without mentioning that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or any error behavior if the note does not exist. This is minimal, leaving the agent uninformed about consequences.

  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, concise sentence ('Delete an existing note.') plus an aliases note. No unnecessary words; every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action.

  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?

  For a simple delete tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete in terms of syntax but lacks critical context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or return behavior. Given there are no annotations, the description should compensate, but it does not.

  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 fully describes the sole parameter (noteName) with a clear description ('The file name of the note'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, 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 clearly states the tool deletes an existing note, using the verb 'delete' and resource 'note'. This distinguishes it from siblings (list-notes, read-note, create-note, update-note) which perform different actions. The aliases also aid recognition.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-note or create-note. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'delete'.

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

• update-noteB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 hints that the note must already exist, but does not explain whether it overwrites the entire content, how it handles missing notes, or what the response contains. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

  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, focused sentence with no fluff, plus a useful alias list. Every word earns its place, and the main information is front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool is simple with two parameters fully documented in the schema. However, behavioral details like overwrite semantics and error handling are absent, and no annotations exist to compensate. This is sufficient for a basic update but leaves some gaps.

  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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (noteName, text) described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already clarifies the parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing note.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-note, delete-note, and read-note, which all handle different operations.

  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, such as create-note or read-note. It also omits conditions like requiring the note to already exist, despite implying this with 'existing.'

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

• create-noteB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new note' and gives no information about return values, side effects, error conditions, or whether existing notes are overwritten. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

  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 precise sentence plus an alias list, with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

  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?

  Despite the tool being simple with well-documented parameters, the description omits the return value/response format (no output schema exists) and any caveats such as duplicate handling. With sibling tools present, it also lacks guidance on when to choose this over update-note. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke and handle the result.

  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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (noteName and text), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 'Create a new note' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-notes, read-note, update-note, and delete-note. The aliases provided are extra but harmless.

  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 implies this tool is for creating new notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over update-note, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The distinction is only implicit via the verb 'create'.

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

• read-noteA
  3.6/5.0
  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 only states the basic read operation and does not mention return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects, leaving the agent with limited transparency beyond the obvious read nature.

  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 concise sentence with aliases appended, front-loading the key purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

  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 simple tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., note content format), which would enhance completeness. Overall, it is adequate for a read operation.

  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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to 'noteName' beyond the schema's 'The file name of the note', so the score remains at the baseline.

  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 reads the content of a note, using the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource. Aliases are provided for discoverability, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like create, update, delete, and list.

  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 implies usage through its purpose statement: use this when you need to read a note's content. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or mention alternative tools, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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

• list-notesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the core behavior (lists all note file names) but does not specify details such as ordering, potential size limits, or return format. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not confirmed, which is a minor gap.

  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 short sentences, with the primary meaning in the first and useful alias information in the second. There is no waste; every token provides value.

  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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., array of strings) or any edge-case behavior, but these are highly inferable from the name. Slightly more explicit return info would make it fully complete.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Per the baseline rule, the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate here.

  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 action ('List') and the resource ('all note file names'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that operate on individual notes. Even without the title, the purpose is unambiguous.

  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 implies usage context (to enumerate note file names) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or directly reference sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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