Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• trailmem_linkB
  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. It discloses the creation/removal actions and edge types, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or behavior when edges already exist.

  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?

  Two sentences front-load the core functionality and list edge types. It is efficient but could be slightly more compact by integrating the type list into the first sentence.

  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 6 parameters and moderate complexity, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, and validation. It assumes prior knowledge of trailmem_show for removal, leaving gaps in completeness.

  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 has 0% description coverage. The description explains the roles of action, source, target, edge_type, and edge_id, but omits metadata. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for most parameters, though not comprehensively.

  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 it creates or removes a typed edge between memories, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes between two actions and mentions a sibling tool (trailmem_show) for removal, but lacks explicit differentiation from all siblings.

  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 explains when to use 'add' vs 'remove' and references trailmem_show for removal, but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with other siblings like trailmem_edit or trailmem_store.

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

• trailmem_editB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description mentions automatic refresh of hash, embedding, and search index upon content edits, which is a useful behavioral detail. But it does not discuss other side effects, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving gaps given no 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?

  Two concise sentences that front-load the primary function and special conditions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description covers only the core operation and one special case. It lacks parameter details, error conditions, and return value context, making it incomplete for a complex tool.

  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 description coverage, the description names a few parameters (content, title, pin, archive_reason) but does not explain their semantics or the full set of 9 parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

  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 updates a memory's content/title/type/pin or archives it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trailmem_show and trailmem_store by being the only editing tool, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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 use for modifying existing memories, and provides specific archiving conditions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

• trailmem_welcomeB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses stateful behavior (repeat calls return short form, force=true resets) and output contents. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or confirm read-only nature.

  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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads purpose and contents; second sentence adds critical behavioral nuance. Perfectly concise 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?

  Covers the core behavior and statefulness, aligning with the simple tool complexity. However, missing parameter documentation (project, agent_type) and lack of any annotations make it incomplete for full autonomous use.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0% with 3 parameters. Description only explains 'force' partially (for repeat calls). 'project' and 'agent_type' are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or allowed values.

  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 as a 'Session-start briefing' and lists the contents (pinned rules, recent activity, open tasks, stats). This is specific and distinct from siblings like trailmem_query or trailmem_show, though not explicitly 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?

  Provides clear usage guidance: 'Call once at session start' and explains behavior on repeat calls (short form unless force=true). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the instruction is actionable.

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

• trailmem_queryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (#id, type, status, edge count, preview) but does not mention mutation, authentication, rate limits, or safety. The name and purpose imply a read-only search, but this is not explicitly stated.

  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 sentences that front-load the purpose and return format, with no redundant or extraneous words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema, the description only briefly mentions return content (e.g., 200-char preview). It does not explain the semantics of 6 parameters, required vs. optional usage, or how filters work. A search tool with this many parameters needs more guidance.

  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?

  The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameter. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone (e.g., text, limit, project), which is insufficient for correct invocation.

  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: 'Search memories (semantic + keyword).' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('memories'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting what it returns and that trailmem_show provides full content.

  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 explicitly guides the agent to use trailmem_show for full content, implying when this tool is insufficient. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools for related tasks like editing or storing.

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

• trailmem_showA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that it returns edges and that edge IDs are used by other tools (link remove). No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it implies read-only behavior but does not state explicit 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?

  Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose and key differentiator.

  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?

  Describes output well (content, edges, supersede chain), but lacks parameter description. With output schema existing, return values are covered, but input parameter 'ref' is unexplained.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain the 'ref' parameter. The agent cannot infer what value to provide (e.g., memory ID, reference string).

  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?

  Clearly states it fetches a full memory with content, edges, and supersede chain. Distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool that returns edges, which are needed for link remove.

  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?

  Implies use when you need to retrieve a full memory with edges. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but differentiates from siblings by mentioning edge retrieval.

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

• trailmem_storeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses memory storage behavior, character limits, and duplicate rejection. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden; the output schema likely covers return values. No contradictions.

  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?

  Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints and error behavior. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

  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?

  Despite good purpose clarity, the high parameter count (14) and 0% schema coverage require much richer description. Missing explanations for optional linking, edge types, force, pinned, etc. Output schema exists but description does not reference it.

  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?

  Only explains constraints for two parameters (title, content) among 14. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate but fails for most parameters (force, pinned, link_to, etc.). Detailed param semantics are missing.

  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 'Save a new memory' and specifies the resource types (decision/lesson/task/constraint) with optional linking. It distinguishes from siblings like trailmem_edit (edit) and trailmem_query (query) by focusing on creation.

  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?

  Provides explicit constraints (title 3-60 chars, content 50+ chars, English version) and duplicate handling ('rejected/blocked with existing #id — edit that instead'). Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives beyond duplicates.

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