Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_file_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds useful context about the scope ('only works within allowed directories') and what information is returned, but doesn't detail error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the directory restriction.

  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?

  Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second details return values, third adds crucial constraint. Each sentence earns its place by providing distinct, necessary information in a front-loaded manner.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, return values, and a key constraint, though it could mention error handling or prerequisites more explicitly.

  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 0%, but the description doesn't explain the 'path' parameter beyond what's implied by context. With only one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the description adds minimal value over the schema but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

  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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('detailed metadata about a file or directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_file (which reads content) or list_directory (which lists items). It specifies this is for metadata only, not content access.

  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 with 'perfect for understanding file characteristics without reading the actual content' and 'only works within allowed directories,' giving implicit guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_directory_with_sizes or compare to other metadata tools.

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

• read_media_fileA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about directory restrictions and output format (base64 + MIME type), but does not cover rate limits, file size limits, or error behaviors, which would enhance transparency further.

  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 front-loaded with core purpose and output, followed by a constraint, in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete but could improve by detailing parameter semantics or error cases. It adequately covers purpose, constraints, and output without redundancy.

  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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond implying it's for file location, leaving format and constraints unspecified. This is a baseline score as the description adds minimal semantic value over 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 the specific action ('Read'), resource ('image or audio file'), and output ('base64 encoded data and MIME type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file, read_text_file, and read_multiple_files by specifying media file types.

  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 with 'Only works within allowed directories,' guiding when to use it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like read_text_file for non-media files, which would have earned a 5.

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

• edit_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation), the description specifies the exact editing mechanism (line-based replacements), the return format (git-style diff), and the directory restriction. This gives the agent practical understanding of how the tool behaves beyond just knowing it's destructive.

  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?

  Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the editing mechanism, the third covers output and constraints. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct, essential information.

  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 destructive file editing tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description provides solid context about the editing approach, constraints, and output format. It doesn't need to explain return values since there's an output schema, but could mention error conditions or permissions. The directory restriction is particularly valuable 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?

  With only 33% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'line-based edits' which relates to the 'edits' parameter, but doesn't clarify the structure of edits array, the meaning of 'path', or how 'dryRun' interacts with the diff output. The schema does most of the parameter documentation work.

  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 specific action ('Make line-based edits'), target resource ('to a text file'), and method ('Each edit replaces exact line sequences with new content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_file' by specifying line-based editing rather than full file overwriting, and from 'read_file' by being a modification tool.

  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 about when to use this tool ('Only works within allowed directories'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'write_file' that might not have directory restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for different editing scenarios.

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

• list_directoryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output format ([FILE] and [DIR] prefixes) and the constraint 'Only works within allowed directories,' which informs about access limitations. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid paths) or performance aspects like pagination.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details in a logical flow. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies output format, the third explains usage context, and the fourth states a constraint. There is no redundant or wasted text.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, read-only operation), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). The description adds useful context like output formatting and access restrictions, making it mostly complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning error handling or linking to sibling tools for better integration.

  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 0% description coverage, but the description adds some meaning by specifying that the 'path' parameter is for 'a specified path' and implies it must be within allowed directories. However, it does not detail the path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic but incomplete compensation.

  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 with specific verbs ('Get a detailed listing') and resources ('files and directories in a specified path'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'directory_tree' (which might show hierarchical structure) or 'search_files' (which filters content). It explicitly mentions the output format with [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes, adding specificity.

  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 ('essential for understanding directory structure and finding specific files within a directory') and includes an exclusion ('Only works within allowed directories'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'list_directory_with_sizes' or 'list_allowed_directories' for comparison, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

• move_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that the operation fails if the destination exists, works across directories, and requires source/destination within allowed directories. This goes beyond annotations by detailing failure conditions and constraints, though it lacks information on rate limits or auth needs.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key points in three sentences: moving/renaming capabilities, failure condition, and directory constraints. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (file system operation with constraints), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the operation's behavior, failure cases, and directory restrictions, but could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or output details, though the output schema mitigates the latter.

  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 0% description coverage, but the description adds some meaning by explaining that 'source' and 'destination' are used for moving/renaming files and directories, and both must be within allowed directories. However, it does not detail parameter formats (e.g., path syntax) or constraints beyond what is implied, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

  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 specific verb ('move or rename') and resource ('files and directories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_directory, edit_file, and write_file. It explicitly mentions moving between directories and renaming within the same directory, which clarifies the scope beyond just basic file movement.

  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 on when to use this tool: for moving or renaming files/directories, including cross-directory moves and simple renames. It mentions that the operation fails if the destination exists, which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like edit_file for content changes, leaving some room for improvement.

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

• read_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about deprecation and the alternative tool, which is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe potential limitations like file size constraints or encoding issues.

  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 extremely concise - just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes (stating functionality and providing deprecation guidance). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides adequate context for a deprecated tool. It clearly communicates the deprecation status and alternative, though it could potentially mention migration considerations or why this tool was deprecated.

  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?

  With 67% schema description coverage (two of three parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema provides reasonable coverage, though the description could have explained the interaction between 'head' and 'tail' parameters.

  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 specific action ('Read the complete contents of a file as text') and distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'read_text_file' by explicitly marking it as deprecated and providing an alternative. It uses precise verbs and identifies the resource (file contents).

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool ('DEPRECATED: Use read_text_file instead'), naming the specific alternative. This gives clear direction for tool selection among siblings, though it doesn't detail when this deprecated version might still be appropriate.

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

• write_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it warns about overwriting without warning, specifies it handles text content with proper encoding, and mentions it only works within allowed directories. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose and caution, followed by additional details in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information (overwriting behavior, encoding, directory restrictions) without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (destructive write operation), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). The description adds necessary context like overwriting behavior and directory restrictions, but could benefit from more on error handling or success conditions to be fully complete.

  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 0% description coverage, but the description does not add specific meaning to the 'path' and 'content' parameters beyond implying 'path' is for file location and 'content' is text. It mentions allowed directories for 'path' and text encoding for 'content', which provides some compensation, but lacks details like format constraints or examples.

  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 with specific verbs ('create' and 'overwrite') and resource ('file'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'edit_file' by emphasizing complete overwriting rather than partial modification. It explicitly mentions handling text content with encoding, which further clarifies its scope.

  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 ('create a new file or completely overwrite an existing file') and includes a caution about overwriting without warning. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'edit_file' for partial updates) or specify when not to use it beyond the caution, missing full sibling differentiation.

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

• directory_treeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the recursive nature, output structure details (JSON with 2-space indentation, children arrays for directories), and the allowed directories constraint, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error handling.

  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?

  Front-loaded with the core purpose, each sentence adds specific value: output format, structure details, and constraints. No wasted words, and the structure is logical and efficient.

  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's moderate complexity, annotations covering safety, and an output schema handling return values, the description is complete enough. It explains the recursive behavior, output format, and constraints without needing to detail parameters or return values.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't explain the 'path' or 'excludePatterns' parameters, but since there are only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

  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 specific action ('Get a recursive tree view'), resource ('files and directories'), and output format ('as a JSON structure'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory (non-recursive) or search_files (filtered).

  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?

  It provides clear context with 'Only works within allowed directories' and implies usage for hierarchical views, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like list_directory_with_sizes or list_allowed_directories.

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

• list_directory_with_sizesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the output format ('[FILE] and [DIR] prefixes'), the scope constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'), and the tool's utility for structure analysis. While it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, it provides meaningful operational details that enhance transparency.

  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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second explains output formatting, and the third provides usage context and constraints. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

  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's moderate complexity, annotations covering safety, an output schema (implied by context signals), and clear purpose, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how results are presented, usage scenarios, and access limitations. No critical gaps exist, as output details are handled by the schema, and annotations cover read-only behavior.

  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 50% (only 'sortBy' has a description). The description mentions 'specified path' which aligns with the 'path' parameter but doesn't add details like format or examples. It implies sorting by size but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema's enum. With moderate coverage, the description provides minimal additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for adequate but not compensatory value.

  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 specific action ('Get a detailed listing'), resource ('files and directories in a specified path'), and key feature ('including sizes'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'list_directory' by emphasizing size information and formatting details, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

  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 understanding directory structure and finding specific files within a directory') and includes an important exclusion ('Only works within allowed directories'). However, it doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives like 'list_directory' (which presumably lacks sizes) or 'directory_tree' (which might show hierarchy), missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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

• create_directoryA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains idempotent behavior ('if directory already exists, succeeds silently'), mentions creating nested directories, and specifies the constraint about allowed directories. While annotations cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description provides practical implementation details that enhance understanding.

  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 efficiently structured with four concise sentences, each adding distinct value: core functionality, idempotent behavior, use cases, and constraints. There's no redundancy or wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

  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's moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual understanding. It covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and use cases without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema) or repeat annotation information.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, the description compensates by explaining what the path represents ('directory or nested directories') and the operational context ('within allowed directories'). It doesn't provide format examples or syntax details, but adds meaningful semantic context beyond 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create', 'ensure exists') and resource ('directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory or move_file. It explicitly mentions creating nested directories, which differentiates it from simpler file operations.

  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 ('setting up directory structures', 'ensuring required paths exist') and mentions constraints ('only works within allowed directories'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

• read_multiple_filesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation (partial success behavior), mentions efficiency benefits, and specifies the directory restriction. While it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, it provides meaningful operational details that annotations alone wouldn't convey.

  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 efficiently structured with four focused sentences: purpose statement, efficiency rationale, output format, and operational constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

  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's moderate complexity, the presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, and the comprehensive parameter documentation, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral characteristics, and constraints without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'paths' parameter. The description adds minimal additional context about path validity and directory restrictions, but doesn't provide significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 specific action ('Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously'), distinguishes it from single-file reading operations, and explicitly mentions the efficiency advantage over reading files one by one. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'read_text_file'.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to analyze or compare multiple files'), when not to use it (implied: for single files, use other read tools), and mentions constraints ('Only works within allowed directories'). This gives clear context for tool selection versus alternatives.

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

• search_filesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies recursive searching, glob-style pattern requirements, path relativity to working directory, and the constraint of searching only within allowed directories. It doesn't mention rate limits or performance characteristics, but provides sufficient operational context given the annotations.

  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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, explaining pattern syntax, providing usage context, and stating constraints. There's no redundant information, and the most critical information (what the tool does) comes first, followed by implementation details and limitations.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, recursive searching), the description provides good context about behavior and constraints. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 0% schema description coverage and three parameters, the description could better explain all parameters' semantics to be fully complete for agent understanding.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It explains the 'pattern' parameter thoroughly with glob-style examples and clarifies that patterns match paths relative to the working directory. However, it doesn't explain the 'path' parameter's purpose or the 'excludePatterns' parameter at all, leaving some semantic gaps despite good coverage of the pattern parameter.

  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 with specific verbs ('recursively search for files and directories matching a pattern') and resources ('files and directories'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory (which lists without pattern matching) or get_file_info (which retrieves metadata for known files). It explicitly mentions the recursive nature and pattern-based matching, which differentiates it from simpler listing tools.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Great for finding files when you don't know their exact location') and when not to use it ('Only searches within allowed directories'), with clear alternatives implied by sibling tools like list_directory for known locations or get_file_info for specific files. The pattern examples help users understand appropriate use cases versus other tools.

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

• list_allowed_directoriesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that subdirectories within allowed directories are also accessible, which clarifies the scope of access. However, it does not mention other potential traits like rate limits or authentication needs, though the annotation covers the safety aspect adequately.

  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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words, making it easy to understand quickly.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the scope of access, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing additional details on parameters or return values.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters, and it focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead.

  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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of directories that this server is allowed to access'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on allowed directories rather than general directory operations like 'list_directory' or 'directory_tree'.

  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?

  It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to understand which directories and their nested paths are available before trying to access files'), including a practical context for usage and an implied alternative (use this before other file-access tools).

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

• read_text_fileA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: handles text encodings, provides detailed error messages, operates on text regardless of extension, and directory restrictions. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details in clear, efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 annotations cover safety, output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), and the description provides clear purpose, usage, and behavioral context, it is complete for this read-only tool with moderate complexity.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 67% (path lacks description, head/tail have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of head/tail parameters ('read only the first N lines'/'read only the last N lines') and clarifies that path is for file access, compensating for the partial schema coverage.

  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 specific action ('Read the complete contents of a file'), the resource ('file from the file system'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it operates 'as text' (vs. read_media_file) and for 'single file' (vs. read_multiple_files).

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use ('when you need to examine the contents of a single file'), provides alternatives via parameters (head/tail for partial reading), and sets boundaries ('Only works within allowed directories').

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