Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• retrieve_memoryC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'find relevant memories' but doesn't disclose how relevance is scored, whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. The description lacks details needed for safe and effective use.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Find relevant memories'), though it could be more structured with additional context. For its brevity, it communicates the essence 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'memories' are, how they're retrieved, the return format, or error handling. For a tool with query and result-limit parameters, more context is needed for effective use.

  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 the description must compensate but adds no parameter-specific information. It mentions 'query' generally but doesn't explain its format, constraints, or how 'n_results' affects output. The description fails to clarify semantics beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters poorly understood.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Find relevant memories based on query' states the general purpose (verb 'find' + resource 'memories') but lacks specificity about what 'memories' are or how relevance is determined. It distinguishes from 'store_memory' but not clearly from 'search_by_tag' (both involve finding memories). The purpose is understandable but vague.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_tag'. The description implies usage for query-based retrieval, but there's no explicit mention of when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings. Usage is implied from the name and description alone.

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

• search_by_tagC
  2.6/5.0
  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 states 'Search' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, returns partial matches, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the complexity of a search operation, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective tool use.

  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 the description must compensate. It mentions 'by tags' which hints at the 'tags' parameter, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's basic type information—no details on tag format, case sensitivity, or how multiple tags are combined (AND/OR). This partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search memories by tags' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('memories'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'retrieve_memory'. It doesn't specify whether this searches all memories or a subset, or how it differs from the retrieval sibling.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_memory'. The description implies usage for tag-based searching but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with siblings.

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

• store_memoryC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'store new information' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether storage is persistent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears to create data.

  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 at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('store', 'new information', 'optional tags') contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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?

  Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (one nested), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'storing' entails operationally, what format the information should be in, how tags are used, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical context for proper invocation.

  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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'information' and 'optional tags' which loosely map to 'content' and 'metadata.tags', but doesn't explain the 'metadata.type' parameter at all or provide any format/constraint details. This partial coverage is insufficient given the schema's complexity with nested objects.

  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 action ('store') and resource ('new information') with additional functionality ('with optional tags'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_memory' or 'search_by_tag', which would require mentioning this is specifically for creating/adding new memories rather than retrieving or searching existing ones.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_memory' or 'search_by_tag'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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