Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• index_documentsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action and technology, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing index data), prerequisites (e.g., Milvus availability), or the nature of the indexing process (e.g., incremental vs. full reindex). The schema hints at force_reindex, but the description adds little behavioral 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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for its minimal scope.

  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?

  With no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent. It does not explain return values, preconditions, or the effects of indexing. While it identifies the core action, significant contextual information is missing for safe and effective invocation.

  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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how directory, recursive, force_reindex, or current_working_directory behave beyond their existing schema definitions.

  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 ('Index'), the target resource ('Markdown files'), and the purpose ('for semantic search using Milvus'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documents and clear_index.

  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 as a preparatory step for semantic search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The purpose 'for semantic search' gives some contextual hint, but no direct guidance is offered.

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

• search_documentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that search is semantic ('semantically relevant'), but does not disclose prerequisites like prior indexing, result ordering, or return structure. Adds some value but misses important behavioral 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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. Efficient and appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

  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?

  For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not state that documents must be indexed first, what the return format looks like, or any constraints. However, the basic purpose is clear, and sibling tools provide some context.

  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 both query and k already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that search is based on query, 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 a specific verb 'search' plus resource 'documents' and qualifier 'semantically relevant', clearly distinguishing it from siblings index_documents and clear_index. It states exactly what the tool does.

  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 indicates usage for semantic search, which is implied rather than explicit. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and clear context provide adequate guidance.

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

• clear_indexA
  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 behavior. It explicitly says 'Clear' and 'reset', indicating destructive actions, but it does not warn about irreversibility or the need for caution, which is important for a destructive 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys both actions performed.

  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 destructive tool, the description covers the core actions but omits a warning about data loss or the post-condition that the index becomes empty. It is mostly complete given its simplicity, but slightly lacking in context about consequences.

  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, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to explain.

  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 ('Clear') and resources ('the vector database's collection' and 'the tracking file'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools index_documents and search_documents.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool's name and function, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it or when to avoid it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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