Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_session_summaryB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool updates a file, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, how conflicts are handled, if changes are reversible, or what happens to existing content. The 'append' behavior is only hinted at in the parameter description, not in the main description.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the append behavior, but it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., append vs. replace), what the session-summary.md file is, or what the tool returns. The context of 'current session info' is vague without elaboration.

  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%, with the single parameter 'summary' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 action ('update') and resource ('session summary file') with specific context ('without doing a full session close'). It distinguishes from 'end_session' by specifying partial vs. full closure, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'sync_context_files'.

  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 ('without doing a full session close'), suggesting this is for incremental updates during an active session rather than final closure. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'sync_context_files' or what triggers its use.

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

• end_sessionB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like syncing files and committing to git, which imply mutations and potential side effects, but doesn't detail permissions needed, error handling, or what happens if operations fail. For a tool with multiple operations and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and main use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key actions or outcomes.

  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 (multiple operations like syncing and committing) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose but misses details on behavioral traits, error scenarios, and return values. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke it 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as formatting details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  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 specific verbs ('Close', 'sync', 'update', 'commit') and resources ('Cursor session', 'context files', 'Agent OS files', 'git'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_context_files' or 'update_session_summary', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 by stating 'This is the main tool for ending a work session,' which suggests it should be used to conclude sessions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sync_context_files' or 'update_session_summary,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• sync_context_filesA
  3.8/5.0
  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 that the tool performs a sync operation without closing the session, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what 'sync' entails (e.g., overwriting, merging, or validation), leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation-like 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resources, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but covers the basics. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but for a tool that likely modifies files, it lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to explain, and the description focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

  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 action ('Sync all context files') and specifies the resources (claude.md, gemini.md, agents.md, .cursor/context.md). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'without closing the session', which differentiates it from 'end_session'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_session_summary', keeping it from 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for mid-session syncs'), which implies usage during an ongoing session rather than at the end. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'update_session_summary', but the mid-session focus gives practical guidance.

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