Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compress_writeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: creates backup on first call, overwrites on retry, returns {valid, errors}, and suggests fallback to compress_restore. This goes beyond the bare minimum, though it omits details like authentication or error conditions.

  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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, but additional parameter detail could be added without harming conciseness.

  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 (2 params, no annotations, output schema referenced), the description covers return format, retry behavior, and fallback. It is largely complete, though parameter semantics are a gap.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description does not elaborate on the parameters (filepath, compressed_content) beyond their names. It fails to specify expected formats or constraints for compressed_content, leaving agents to infer from names alone.

  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 writes compressed content to a file, with backup and overwrite behavior. The name 'compress_write' and the mention of 'compress_restore' implicitly distinguish it from siblings, but no direct comparison to compress_prepare is made.

  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?

  Provides context on first call vs retry (backup vs overwrite) and advises calling compress_restore if errors persist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus compress_prepare or other alternatives.

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

• compress_restoreA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the backup is deleted after restore, which is key. However, it omits other details like required permissions, error conditions, or side effects on related files.

  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 short, focused sentences with no excess. The action and scenario are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

  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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the main action and usage context. However, the parameter documentation gap reduces completeness.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'filepath' as obviously the path to the file to restore, but does not clarify whether it should be the original file or the backup. This ambiguity harms usability.

  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: restore a file from its .original.md backup and delete the backup. It provides a specific verb ('restore') and resource (backup file), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 specifies when to call this tool: 'if compression validation keeps failing after retries'. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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

• compress_prepareA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that no API key is needed and that the tool only reads files, not compressing them. This adds value beyond the input schema, though it could mention potential errors like missing files.

  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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding essential workflow context. No redundant information is present.

  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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and workflow. Minor omissions like return format details do not significantly hinder usability.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the parameter 'filepath' is not described beyond the name. The description only mentions 'Read a file' without specifying file formats, encoding, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 'Read a file and return its content with compression instructions,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by outlining the workflow: the agent compresses the returned content and passes it to compress_write.

  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 implies usage as a preparatory step before compress_write by stating 'the calling agent compresses the returned content, then passes it to compress_write.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with compress_restore or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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