Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• recallA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical canonical-key matching requirement, the return format (dict with 'results'), and the empty-result behavior. It does not cover permissions, side effects, or error cases, but for a simple retrieval tool it is fairly transparent.

  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 bit longer than necessary but well-structured into an overview, an IMPORTANT note, usage guidance, parameter descriptions, and return info. Every section earns its place, with no redundant 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?

  The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers return value shape, empty result behavior, and the crucial key canonicalization guidance. It could be more explicit about what's inside each memory item, but 'including stored value' is sufficient for a retrieve-by-key tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'key' is described as 'concise, embedding-friendly, space-separated query text used for similarity search,' and 'top_k' as 'maximum number of nearest memories to return.' It even provides a mapping example, fully compensating for the schema gap.

  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 opens with 'Retrieve stored memories relevant to a query key,' which is a specific verb+resource+query. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'store' and 'forget' by focusing on 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?

  It explicitly states 'This tool SHOULD be called by the LLM when it needs to fetch previously stored facts, personal details, or preferences,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with store/forget, so it misses the 'when-not' part.

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

• forgetA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 irreversibility, the need to confirm ambiguous intent, return format (deleted_ids), and the critical key-style constraint. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

  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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the IMPORTANT note is strategically placed. No unnecessary 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?

  Despite no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and return value. It fully addresses the tool's complexity and compensates for missing structured information.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'key' as concise canonical query text and 'top_k' as number of nearest matches. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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 deletes stored memories matching a query key, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (store, recall) as the deletion counterpart.

  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 explicit scenarios for when to use the tool (user requests forgetting, assistant purging incorrect/sensitive data) with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'recall' for retrieval, but the context is clear enough.

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

• storeA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the storage is NOT secure, advises against storing secrets, and describes the intended use for non-sensitive information. This goes beyond a basic 'store' explanation and discloses important behavioral constraints.

  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?

  Although the description is longer than typical, every section earns its place: security warning, key formatting rules, usage guidelines, and privacy note. It is well-structured with clear headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 tool's simplicity (two string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, how to format parameters, and important security caveats. Nothing critical is missing for safe and correct use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates excellently. It explains exactly how to format 'key' (short, canonical, 1-5 words, space-separated, with examples) and how to use 'value' (full text, include extra context). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

  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 stores a user's fact, piece of information, or preference for later recall. It uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('user's fact...') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by focusing on the storage action.

  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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This tool SHOULD be called by the LLM whenever the user states a fact, personal detail, or stable preference that the assistant is expected to remember.' It also gives clear exclusions (do not store sensitive credentials) and alternative handling, which fully covers usage context.

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