Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• provide-clarificationD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, what format the clarification takes, or how it interacts with the system. The single phrase offers no behavioral insight beyond the basic action implied by the name.

  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 maximally concise - a single three-word phrase with no wasted words. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is perfectly structured as a minimal statement of function without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity implied by having two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest this is part of a larger workflow, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'clarification answer' is, how it relates to the parameters, what the tool actually does with the input, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage and two required parameters ('answer' and 'questionIndex'), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of what 'answer' should contain or what 'questionIndex' refers to in the context of providing clarification.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Provide a clarification answer' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'provide-clarification' with minimal additional meaning. It doesn't specify what kind of clarification, for what purpose, or what resource/context it operates on. While it includes the verb 'provide' and object 'clarification answer', this is too vague to understand the tool's specific function.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'generate-impl-plan', 'generate-prd', and 'start-clarification' available, there's no indication of how this tool fits into a workflow or when it should be selected over those other options. The description is completely silent on usage context.

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

• start-clarificationC
  2.9/5.0
  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. It states 'start a process' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this initiates a long-running task, requires user authentication, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of starting a process with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the clarification process works, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective use.

  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% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'initialDescription' and 'projectName' relate to the clarification process. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('start') and the resource ('project clarification process'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'provide-clarification' or 'generate-prd', which might involve similar clarification activities, so it's not fully specific.

  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 like 'provide-clarification' or 'generate-prd'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether this is an initial step in a workflow or when it's appropriate to invoke.

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

• generate-impl-planB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates and saves a plan, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires user input, how it handles errors, what format the output is in, or if there are rate limits. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('generate') and includes the secondary action ('save it') concisely. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 tool's complexity (generating and saving a plan, implying mutation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the plan includes, how it's saved, or what the return value is. For a tool with behavioral implications and no structured support, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.

  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 param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't contradict the schema.

  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 a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('project implementation plan'), plus an additional action ('save it'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate-prd' (which creates a different document) and 'provide-clarification'/'start-clarification' (which handle queries rather than planning). However, it doesn't specify what 'save it' entails (e.g., where it's saved), 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 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project details first), exclusions (e.g., not for small tasks), or comparisons to siblings like 'generate-prd' (for requirements docs) or clarification tools. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose, lacking explicit context.

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

• generate-prdB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating and saving a PRD, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, or the format/location of the saved output. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies project structure.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero waste. It uses clear language and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of generating and saving a document (a write operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a PRD entails, how it's structured, or what 'save it to the project structure' means in practice, leaving the agent with unclear expectations.

  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?

  There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant information, meeting the baseline for no parameters.

  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 ('generate a project PRD') and the outcome ('save it to the project structure'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-impl-plan' or 'provide-clarification', which might involve similar documentation tasks.

  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 like 'generate-impl-plan' or 'provide-clarification'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a project must be initialized first, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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