Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• notch_clearA
  3.7/5.0
  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 adds only the word 'immediately' which hints at instant execution, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or any state changes beyond hiding the readout. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have subtle 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 a single, succinct sentence that is front-loaded and free of any filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no annotations.

  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 complete absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description provides all the essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly. The simple action of hiding the readout is fully captured by the one-sentence description.

  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, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and since there are no parameters to describe, the description appropriately adds nothing in this regard.

  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 specifies the action ('Hide') and the resource ('the readout'), conveying the tool's purpose directly. It distinguishes itself from siblings like notch_styles and notch_status by describing a distinct hiding/clearing behavior.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no references to prerequisites, exclusions, or other sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.

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

• notch_errorA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses visual behavior (flash red, longer duration than success) and implies auto-dismissal, but it does not state potential side effects like clearing existing notifications or how it interacts with other statuses.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. It contains no redundant words and effectively conveys the tool's essence.

  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?

  For a simple notification tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers purpose and key visual behavior, but lacks explicit usage guidance, default value explanations (though schema has them), or edge-case handling.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention text, detail, or dismissAfter.

  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 function: to resolve the current task as failed, with specific visual behavior (flash red, linger longer than success). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notch_done (likely success) and notch_clear.

  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 phrase 'Resolve the current task as failed' implies usage for error/failure scenarios, and the contrast with 'success' hints at alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool.

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

• notch_doneA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly states the visual outcome (flash green, auto-hide) and the semantic context (resolve current task). While it doesn't detail side effects or edge cases, the disclosed behavior is sufficient for a simple notification tool.

  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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Resolve the current task: flash green, then auto-hide') followed by a concise usage note. Every word 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?

  For a simple tool with no output schema and a fully described schema, the description provides the necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what the user sees. It doesn't elaborate on interactions with siblings or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

  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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with clear meanings (completion label, optional detail, dismissal delay). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource 'current task,' with clear behavior 'flash green, then auto-hide.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like notch_error and notch_status by explicitly targeting 'complete' updates at the end of long work.

  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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use for "complete" updates at the end of long work,' giving clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is specific enough given the sibling tool names.

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

• notch_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Does not steal focus and needs no window' and explains that readouts must be resolved via notch_done or notch_error instead of vanishing. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not mention TTL expiry behavior (which the schema's ttl param already covers).

  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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It includes usage guidance and behavioral caveats without any fluff or redundancy.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with 5 fully described parameters and no output schema. The description supplies crucial usage context (when to call, how to resolve the readout) and behavioral notes, making it sufficiently complete. It could mention potential side-effects or edge cases, but for this tool's simplicity, the coverage is strong.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only minor context like 'Short label' for text, which is already implied. It does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

  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 function: 'Show or update a status readout in the notch.' It uses a specific verb ('Show or update') and resource ('status readout in the notch'), and distinguishes it from siblings like notch_done and notch_error by instructing to finish with those tools.

  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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call when starting long-running work and again as it progresses.' It also provides a clear follow-up instruction to always finish with notch_done or notch_error. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives for other scenarios.

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

• notch_stylesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool is a read-only listing/check operation with no side effects, and adds the context that it should be called before first use if needed. It could have explicitly stated it makes no changes, but 'List' and 'check' strongly imply safety.

  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 the purpose front-loaded and usage guidance immediately following. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  For a no-parameter listing tool, the description provides complete context: what it lists, why it's useful, and when to call it. The absence of an output schema is fine because the tool's purpose is self-explanatory and the sibling tools provide surrounding context.

  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 description doesn't need to elaborate on schema items. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than 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 tool 'List[s] the available notch readout styles with metadata' and also mentions checking 'current display capability.' It specifies a distinct resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like notch_status or notch_clear.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this once before your first notch_status if you are unsure which style fits, or to check whether this Mac currently has a notch at all.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implies alternatives (e.g., use notch_status after choosing a style).

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