Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• store_memoryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behaviors ('automatically generating unique keys and updating indices') but does not explain idempotency handling, return values, or potential side effects like overwrites. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

  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 that conveys the core action, scope, and key behaviors without unnecessary filler. Every phrase contributes value, making it highly 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?

  There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values or error conditions. It covers key generation and index updates but omits details about idempotency key usage and batch alternative. For a simple tool this is adequate but has gaps, so a mid-range score is warranted.

  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 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning; it mentions auto key generation but does not directly connect it to the idempotency_key parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

  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 'Store a single memory' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a single-item write operation. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like recall_memories (retrieval) and store_memories_batch (batch storage) by explicitly stating 'single memory'.

  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 usage for a single memory but does not explicitly contrast it with the batch sibling or mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implied rather than clearly stated.

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

• recall_memoriesA
  4/5.0
  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 adds value by revealing the hybrid search method (semantic + keyword), which is not obvious from the name alone. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as result ordering, handling of the limit parameter, or any side effects. For a read-only search tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

  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, concise sentence that immediately states the core function and search method. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 search tool with two well-described parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how it works. It does not describe the return format or ordering, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap. The description is sufficient for basic use.

  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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already documents each parameter effectively. Baseline 3 applies.

  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: 'Recall relevant memories using hybrid search (semantic similarity + keyword search).' The verb 'recall' and resource 'memories' are specific, and the hybrid search method is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (store_memory and store_memories_batch) which are clearly for writing, not reading.

  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 the tool: it is for retrieving relevant memories. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are all storage operations, making the recall tool's purpose obvious. No conflicts or competing search tools are present, so the implied usage is sufficient.

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

• store_memories_batchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: atomic transaction (all-or-nothing) and index rebuild once. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but the atomicity and performance details are valuable beyond the basic store action.

  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?

  A single sentence conveys the action, the atomic behavior, and the index-rebuild side effect. No wasted words; it is front-loaded 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?

  For a simple batch storage tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key behavioral traits. It does not explain return values, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

  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%, with the 'memories' parameter fully detailed as an array of objects with content, metadata, and idempotency_key. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema, which is adequate.

  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 ('Store multiple memories'), the resource ('memories'), and the batch nature ('multiple'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing atomicity and the batch scope, unlike store_memory (single) and recall_memories (retrieval).

  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 clear context: use when storing multiple memories and when atomicity matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the batch-focused phrasing implies when it should be used over store_memory.

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