Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• feedbackC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'record,' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose side effects, preconditions, or whether modifications are reversible. No mention of return behavior.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity by omitting important details. It could be improved with a second sentence.

  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?

  The description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain the effect of 'scoreAdjustment', constraints, or typical usage patterns, leaving significant gaps.

  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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The agent must infer from parameter names ('id', 'scoreAdjustment'), which may be ambiguous (e.g., is scoreAdjustment absolute or relative?).

  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 ('Record feedback') and the target ('a specific memory entry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete and search. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes feedback, leaving some ambiguity.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use memorize instead). The description lacks context for decision-making.

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

• searchB
  3.1/5.0
  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 says 'Search,' implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or performance characteristics.

  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?

  A single sentence that is concise and to the point. It could be expanded with more useful information without becoming verbose.

  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 absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, ranking, or how to decide between sparse and dense vectors.

  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 already describes both parameters (vector types and limit default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the action (Search), the resource (vector space), and the method (using sparse or dense vector). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete, feedback, and memorize, which have different purposes.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, when to choose sparse vs dense vectors, or any prerequisites. The description lacks usage context.

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

• deleteB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description only indicates a destructive action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, error handling on nonexistent IDs, or confirmation responses.

  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?

  Description is extremely concise, one sentence, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects. Completes the basic need but could improve.

  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% for the single parameter 'id'. The description redundantly states 'by its unique ID', adding no new semantics beyond the schema. 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?

  Description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (entry from vector space) with the method (by unique ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like feedback, memorize, and search, which have different purposes.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to delete or if there are prerequisites. The description simply states the function without usage context.

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

• memorizeA
  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 upsert behavior but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or side effects.

  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, no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes 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?

  For a tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. Missing details on vector format expectations, required fields, and return behavior.

  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 has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds little beyond naming the parameters. It does not explain the meaning or usage of 'id', 'text', 'vector', or 'metadata'.

  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 action: 'Store a new entry in the vector space' and indicates upsert behavior. It differentiates from siblings like 'delete', 'feedback', and 'search'.

  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 for storing or updating entries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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