Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_available_transitionsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description provides behavioral insights by explaining that the output includes organic weighted-graph options, forceTransition-acceptable states, and valid Pomodoro events, and notes that CatStateMachine has no transition validation. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or whether the tool is read-only.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence but is somewhat long and uses punctuation that may reduce clarity. It contains useful information but could be restructured for better readability.

  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 no parameters or output schema, the description covers the main return types but lacks details on edge cases, prerequisites, or references to external documentation for deeper 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 no parameters, the description adds value by explaining what the output contains (three categories of transitions). However, it does not describe the return format or structure, which would help the agent interpret results.

  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 returns transitions reachable from the current state, listing three specific categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_state (which returns state) and trigger_event (which triggers an action).

  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 context is implied: the tool is for exploring transitions before triggering events or force transitions. However, no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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

• get_current_stateA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description alone must convey safety and behavior. It correctly implies a read-only snapshot (non-destructive) and notes the requirement for a running dev instance. However, it does not disclose what happens if the instance is not running or any other side effects.

  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 a single informative sentence, front-loaded with 'Snapshot'. The parenthetical adds necessary context. It is concise without missing key points, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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 no output schema and low complexity, the description covers the tool's purpose and a crucial prerequisite. However, it does not outline what the snapshot contains beyond naming 'state machine and Pomodoro timer', leaving the output format unclear.

  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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since schema coverage is 100%.

  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 it provides a snapshot of the state machine and Pomodoro timer from a running dev instance. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_state_history (history) and get_available_transitions (transitions).

  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 mentions the prerequisite of having 'npm run tauri dev' running, implying the tool only works when a dev instance is active. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives like 'use get_state_history for past states'.

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

• read_console_logsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the server cap of 200 entries and that limit further trims, which is helpful. However, it omits details like expected response format, error handling for missing logs, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves gaps for an agent.

  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: two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the parameter behavior and server constraint. No unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

  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 simple nature (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks information about return format (e.g., array of strings) and edge cases (e.g., no logs yet, server unavailable). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

  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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by noting the debug server caps results at 200 and that limit works on top of that cap. This clarifies the boundary condition, adding 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 it reads the last console.log/warn/error calls from the app window since it loaded. The verb 'read' and the resource 'console logs' are explicit. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (state machine operations) by domain.

  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 for retrieving console output, which is distinct from sibling tools focused on state transitions. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names. However, the domain difference is sufficient for an agent to differentiate.

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

• get_state_historyA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 reveals the server cap of 50 entries and how the limit parameter interacts, which is good disclosure. However, it does not mention auth needs or other potential side effects.

  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 with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded.

  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?

  The description covers ordering, server cap, and limit behavior. However, it lacks explanation of the return format, which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, for a simple tool with one optional parameter, it is mostly complete.

  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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that limit trims to the most recent N of whatever the server returns and that omitting it returns all available. This goes beyond the schema's description.

  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 it returns 'last transitions of both machines, interleaved, oldest first', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_state and get_available_transitions.

  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 for retrieving history and explains the limit behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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

• trigger_eventA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description does not fully cover behavioral aspects like side effects or idempotency. It mentions error handling but lacks detail on mutation or safety profile.

  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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

  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?

  No output schema, but the description clearly explains usage and error behavior. Missing return value details, but acceptable for a command-like tool.

  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 coverage is 100% but the description adds specific valid event names and payload structures, greatly enriching parameter understanding beyond the 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 identifies the tool as sending events to a state machine, lists valid event names, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing get_available_transitions.

  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 to call get_available_transitions first to check valid transitions, and notes that invalid inputs will be rejected with clear errors.

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