Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• memory_historyA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific event types (ADD/UPDATE/DELETE), which is helpful context, but it doesn't disclose ordering, pagination, or retention behavior.

  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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose. There is no unnecessary detail.

  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?

  With an output schema present and only one parameter, the description is sufficient for basic usage. It could explicitly mention that it returns a list of events, but the phrasing 'change history' implies a sequence.

  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 sole parameter memory_id is fully described in the schema, and the tool description doesn't add further syntax or format details. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('change history of a memory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_memory by focusing on event history rather than current state.

  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 get_memory or search_memories. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_memoryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description is consistent with a read operation but adds no behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no mention of not-found behavior or response format). With annotations covering safety, a neutral 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero redundancy. Ideal for a simple tool.

  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 tool's simplicity, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it needs. No missing critical information. Could mention not-found handling, but that's typically covered by the output schema, which exists. Complete for a single-fetch tool.

  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 a clear description for memory_id. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond referencing the ID, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'a single memory' scoped by memory_id, clearly distinguishing it from plural 'get_memories' and 'search_memories'. Meets the criteria for a specific verb+resource+scope.

  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?

  It implies use when you have the exact memory_id and need one memory, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_memories or get_memories. Since this is implied rather than stated, score 3.

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

• add_memoryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds context about long-term memory and default user scope. However, it misses a key behavioral trait: the `infer` parameter defaults to true, meaning the LLM may extract or transform the input before storing. This is not disclosed in the description and is important for anticipating that stored content may differ from raw input.

  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 concise: two sentences total for tool description, front-loaded with the core action and then usage details. No filler or redundant information. 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 the core purpose, input format (text vs messages), and scoping defaults. Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is not mentioning the default `infer=true` behavior, but that is documented in the schema, so the description is not severely lacking. Overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds minimal new information beyond reinforcing the text/messages choice and scoping, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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?

  Description clearly states 'Store a fact, preference, or conversation in TeleMem long-term memory.' The verb 'store' and resource 'TeleMem long-term memory' are specific, and the tool's name matches its function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memory, search_memories, update_memory, and delete_memory by signaling an add operation.

  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 guidance: 'Provide `text` for a single statement or `messages` for conversation turns' and notes scoping by user_id/agent_id/run_id with a default. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but for a write operation the context is straightforward. This falls short of 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' but gives clear context.

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

• update_memoryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'existing memory' implying preconditions but does not elaborate on side effects or error behavior, so it provides only marginal additional 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without redundancy. Every word 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 is sufficient for a simple update operation, given the rich schema and annotations. It clearly states the core behavior (overwrite text) and the required identifier. It does not mention metadata handling, but the schema covers it, and the output schema is present, so this is complete enough.

  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%, and each parameter (memory_id, text, metadata) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further nuance beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 the specific verb 'overwrite' and clearly identifies the resource ('an existing memory') and the key identifier ('by memory_id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_memory (create) and delete_memory (delete).

  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 clearly implies the tool is for updating an existing memory's text, contrasting with add/delete/get siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though context makes this clear.

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

• delete_memoryA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific behavior of deleting a single memory via memory_id, but does not disclose additional side effects (e.g., permanence, reversibility). Since annotations carry much of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

  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 that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.

  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?

  The tool has a simple parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides complete context for an agent to invoke it correctly. No additional details are necessary.

  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 has 100% coverage with the memory_id parameter described as 'Exact memory_id to delete.' The description also references memory_id but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 verb 'Delete', the resource 'memory', and the scope 'single memory by memory_id'. It differentiates from sibling tools like delete_all_memories and get_memory, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 on when to use this tool—when a single memory needs to be deleted by its ID. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools and the phrase 'single memory' imply the distinction from bulk deletion, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

• search_memoriesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that results are returned as one consolidated passage and that shared event memories are included automatically. No contradiction with annotations; the read-only nature is consistent.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, output behavior, and automatic event inclusion. No waste or redundancy.

  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 output schema exists and annotations declare read-only, the description covers the core functionality, fusion behavior, and event handling. It does not detail scoping interactions (run_id, user_id, agent_id) but those are in the schema. This is sufficient for a search tool.

  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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds little beyond implying 'query' is natural-language via 'Semantic search', which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the param documentation burden.

  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 'Semantic search over TeleMem memories' with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('memories'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memories and memory_history by highlighting semantic search and the fused-passage output.

  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 usage for semantic retrieval, contrasting with other memory tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The note about shared event memories being searched automatically adds a usage-relevant detail. No exclusions are provided, so it earns a 4.

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

• delete_all_memoriesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by labeling the operation 'Destructive'. It adds the behavioral nuance that a scope identifier is mandatory and the default user is never assumed, which is valuable safety context beyond the structured hints.

  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 with all key information front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

  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 annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the bulk deletion action and the main usage caveat. It doesn't specify precedence when multiple scope IDs are passed, but this is a minor omission.

  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 has 100% description coverage for the three parameters, but the description adds a critical constraint: at least one of user_id, agent_id, or run_id must be explicitly provided despite all being optional in the schema. This clarifies a potential ambiguity in the input 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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with resource 'every memory' and clarifies scope. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_memory, which targets a single memory.

  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 gives a clear usage condition: an explicit user_id, agent_id, or run_id must be provided, and no default user is assumed. This helps agents avoid accidentally wiping the wrong scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-record deletion.

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

• get_memoriesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the user_id "events" special case, which is not obvious from the schema alone and enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

  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 action and resource, with zero fluff. The special-case instruction is concise and useful.

  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 tool is a read-only list operation with an output schema and clear annotations. The description covers the key nuance (events special value) and is adequately complete for a list tool, though it could mention sorting or pagination behavior that may be relevant.

  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 parameters are well documented. The description supplements this by adding meaning to the user_id parameter (the "events" special value) and indicating that output includes memory_ids, which adds semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists stored memories for a user/agent/run, with a specific verb (list) and resource (memories). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_memory, update_memory, and delete_memory, and the special user_id "events" case adds further specificity.

  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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (listing memories, including the special "events" user_id for shared conversation-event memories), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., use search_memories for filtered queries). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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