Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• save_memoryB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'save' and 'persist', implying write operations, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, success states, or limits. Agent gains little insight beyond the basic 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?

  Three sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with action 'Save individual conversation messages to memory storage'. No fluff or 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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks information about return values, error handling, or behavioral details. It covers usage timing but omits important operational context for a storage 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., speaker, message, context descriptions exist in schema). It reiterates the general purpose but does not clarify parameter usage or constraints.

  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 saves individual conversation messages to memory, which is distinct from retrieving or updating memories. It specifies when to use it (persist important parts, for each significant message), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

  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 context on when to use: 'when you want to persist important parts' and 'during or at the end of conversations'. However, no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

• recall_memory_abstractA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description should cover behavior. It mentions processed summary vs raw messages but does not discuss caching, side effects, or the force_refresh parameter. Limited disclosure.

  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. The last sentence is slightly redundant but overall efficient 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?

  Explains what the tool returns and when to use it. Missing details on the optional parameter and behavior when memory is empty. Adequate for a simple tool 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 description coverage is 0% per context, yet the description does not mention the force_refresh parameter or its effect. Description adds no value beyond the schema for the parameter.

  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 'retrieve the current memory abstract' and explains it summarizes past conversations and context. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it gives a processed summary not raw messages.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use: 'at the beginning of conversations' and 'when you need to check existing memory context'. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like get_recent_memories, but provides clear guidance.

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

• get_recent_memoriesA
  3.9/5.0
  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 discloses that messages are 'raw' and 'unprocessed' and limited to 'the last few days'. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or what form the data is returned in, nor does it specify behavior when no messages are found.

  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?

  Four sentences, each adding value: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies when to use, the third gives concrete use cases, and the fourth reinforces the unprocessed nature. No wasted words and 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 tool has low complexity with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, use cases, and contrasts with alternatives. It does not explain parameter behavior or return format, but given the simplicity, it is mostly 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?

  Context signals indicate schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention the two parameters ('max_days', 'force_refresh') at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 'Retrieve', the resource 'raw conversation messages', and the scope 'from the last few days'. It distinguishes itself from processed summaries, which aligns with sibling tools like 'recall_memory_abstract'.

  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 says when to use this tool ('when you need to see actual conversation history rather than the processed summary') and provides clear use cases ('creating or updating memory abstracts', 'specific details from recent exchanges'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with processed summary is sufficient.

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

• update_memory_abstractA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the write operation and maintains evolving summary, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rollback behavior. Adequate 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?

  Two sentences with front-loaded action and a bullet-point workflow. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

  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?

  Given 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow. However, it lacks parameter-level detail (e.g., what format abstract should be in). Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly within the described workflow.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not directly explain parameters beyond implying 'abstract' is the updated summary and 'last_processed_timestamp' tracks progress. No format or constraints mentioned.

  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 verb 'Save' and resource 'memory abstract', and differentiates from siblings by specifying it's for saving the updated abstract after processing, not for retrieving or saving individual memories.

  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?

  Provides a clear 4-step workflow that explicitly states when to use this tool (after processing) and implies not to use it as a standalone operation. References sibling tools (get_recent_memories, recall_memory_abstract) as preceding steps.

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