Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• index_codebaseA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main effect (creating a searchable index) and the behavior of force_reindex ('Force complete reindexing even if already indexed'). However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, resource usage, or what happens to existing indexes besides the default skip implied by force_reindex.

  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 well-structured with purpose, when-to-use, and parameters sections, and the most critical info is front-loaded. However, there is slight redundancy between 'Call this first before searching any new codebase' and 'Required prerequisite for search_codebase,' which say essentially the same thing.

  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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It lacks some contextual details like return values or side effects, but it is sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully. It defines both parameters in detail: codebase_path requires an absolute path with examples of valid/invalid inputs and validation logic; force_reindex includes a description, default value, and when to use it. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

  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 purpose: 'Prepares a codebase for intelligent search by creating a searchable index.' It uses a specific verb ('prepares', 'creating') and resource ('codebase', 'searchable index'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'Required prerequisite for search_codebase'.

  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 explicitly says when to use: 'Call this first before searching any new codebase' and 'Required prerequisite for search_codebase.' It does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools, but the prerequisite framing provides clear guidance.

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

• get_indexing_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  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. It discloses behavioral traits by stating it 'Shows completion statistics', 'Displays batch processing details', and 'References log files for detailed debugging.' It implicitly indicates a read-only status operation, though it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, enhanced features, when_to_use, parameters, returns). It is somewhat verbose but every section adds value. The XML-like markup improves readability, though a more concise summary could achieve the same clarity in fewer words.

  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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter details, and return information. It even includes enhanced features and debugging references, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The input schema only defines 'codebase_path' as a string with no description, but the tool description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics: absolute path requirement, valid/invalid examples, validation rules, and optional behavior when omitted. This greatly exceeds the schema's bare definition.

  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 purpose: 'Check if codebases are indexed and get their status information.' It also lists specific features like completion statistics and batch processing details. This verb+resource description distinguishes it from siblings like index_codebase and search_codebase.

  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 '<when_to_use>' section provides explicit scenarios, such as 'Before indexing to check if already done' and 'Debug why search returned no results.' It also includes parameter guidance with optional behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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

• clear_indexA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns 'Destructive operation. All search capabilities lost until reindexing' and notes that omitting the parameter clears ALL indexed codebases. This is excellent transparency for a destructive action.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when_to_use, parameters, warnings). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose—including examples and warnings are directly actionable. No fluff or repetition.

  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?

  For a single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and safety warnings. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings. Nothing important is missing.

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

  Parameters5/5

  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 completely. It does: it provides the parameter type (string), validation (absolute path starting with / or C:\), valid/invalid examples, and optional behavior ('Omit to clear ALL indexed codebases'). This adds far more meaning than the bare 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 'Permanently removes all indexed data for a codebase', using a specific verb ('removes'), a resource ('indexed data'), and a scope ('for a codebase'). This distinguishes it from siblings like index_codebase (adds data) and search_codebase (reads data).

  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 'when_to_use' section provides three concrete scenarios: clearing stale data before reindexing, removing old codebases, and fixing corrupted indexes. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use, the scenarios give clear context relative to sibling tools. A slightly higher score would require explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

• search_codebaseA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that results are ranked by semantic relevance, may miss type definitions, exclude filtered content, and require prior indexing. This goes far beyond the minimal safety/behavior hint.

  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 long but well-structured with clearly labeled sections. Some repetition exists (e.g., Grep appears multiple times), but each section serves a purpose and the front-loaded purpose statement makes it easy to scan.

  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?

  With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: return format, prerequisites, limitations, result interpretation, and workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without external documentation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates thoroughly. Each parameter includes type, meaning, examples, validation rules (e.g., absolute path), and best practices (e.g., keeping max_results at 5).

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Finds relevant code in an indexed codebase using natural language or keyword queries.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like index_codebase and clear_index, 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 Guidelines5/5

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

  A dedicated 'when_to_use' section lists concrete scenarios, and the workflow explicitly recommends alternatives like Grep for exact matches and test-file searches. Limitations with solutions further clarify when not to use the tool and what to use instead.

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