Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_journalB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or the meaning of 'recent' (e.g., default days). The parameter 'limit' is not mentioned, which controls output size.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. However, it omits parameter details which could be included without bloating.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameters or output structure beyond a vague list of fields.

  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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters ('days', 'limit'). It fails to explain their purpose or accepted values.

  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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent journal entries', and specifies the output includes 'paths, dates, and sections'. It distinguishes from siblings (write, search, read) by indicating it is for chronological review before reading full entries.

  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 context: 'for chronological review before reading full entries' suggests using this before read_journal. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with search_journal.

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

• read_journalA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information.

  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, the description lacks details about the return value (just 'full content') and assumes the user knows the format. It is functional but could be more complete.

  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 coverage is 0% and the description only says 'by file path' without adding format, constraints, or examples. It adds little 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 states the tool reads the full content of a single journal entry by file path, and specifies that the path is obtained from sibling tools search_journal or list_journal, effectively distinguishing it.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after obtaining a file path from search_journal or list_journal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

• write_journalA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that entries are durable and private, mentions the default section, and states the return value as a JSON path. However, it does not explain whether entries with the same title are overwritten, how file paths are generated, or any side effects like appending rather than creating new files. This is a moderate level of transparency.

  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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary upfront, a bulleted list for section options, and a final return note. There is no redundancy, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 the core purpose, sections, and return value, which is adequate for a write tool with no output schema. It omits potential overwrite behavior and file naming details, but the existence of sibling read/search tools implies a structured journal system, making these omissions less critical. Overall, it is nearly complete.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'section' parameter by detailing each enum value and the default behavior. It also suggests 'meaningful title' for the title parameter, but content is left to common sense. The compensation is partial, hence the score.

  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 verb and resource: 'Write a durable private journal entry with a meaningful title.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings (list, read, search) by focusing on the write operation. The section list adds detail but does not obscure the core purpose.

  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 thorough guidance on selecting the appropriate section based on note content, which is a key usage decision. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the verb 'write' makes the primary use case clear. It could improve by stating when to use this tool rather than read/list/search, but the context is sufficient.

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

• search_journalA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that scores are cosine similarities from a multilingual-e5 model clustering in a narrow band (~0.80-0.89), warns that high scores alone do not imply relevance, and notes that minScore lacks a universal cutoff. This gives the agent essential context for interpreting results.

  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 concise, with three short paragraphs that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function and output, providing usage guidance, and clarifying score interpretation. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description fully enumerates what is returned (markdown snippets with source paths, sections, scores, excerpts). It also covers how to use parameters and interpret results, making the tool's behavior complete without needing additional documentation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the section parameter's purpose for narrowing vs. broad discovery and details the meaning and limitations of scores and minScore. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'limit' parameter beyond its schema constraint (integer, max 50), which is acceptable but not fully compensating.

  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 explicitly states the tool searches private journal entries semantically and returns LLM-readable markdown snippets with source paths, sections, scores, and excerpts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like write_journal, read_journal, and list_journal by focusing on semantic search rather than direct access or listing.

  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 clear guidance on when to use the section parameter ('narrow recall when the intent is known') and when to omit it ('for broad discovery'). It also cautions about interpreting scores and minScore, helping the agent decide when to rely on the tool's output. While explicit sibling comparisons are absent, the usage advice is sufficient.

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