Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_gitlab_repoC
  2.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'process and return... as text', which implies a read operation, but fails to detail critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'process' entails (e.g., formatting, filtering). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details without sacrificing brevity.

  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 tool's complexity (involves external GitLab access), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits essential context such as authentication, error cases, return format details beyond 'as text', and how it differs from siblings, making it incomplete for reliable agent 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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain the parameters (repo_url, branch) beyond what's implied by the tool name and context. It adds no semantic details about parameter formats, constraints, or usage, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 states the tool 'Process and return the code from a GitLab repository branch as text', which provides a clear verb ('process and return') and resource ('code from a GitLab repository branch'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling tools (get_github_repo, get_local_repo) beyond mentioning 'GitLab', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool over alternatives.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_github_repo, get_local_repo) or any other alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without indicating specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, which limits its utility for an AI agent making selection decisions.

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

• get_github_repoC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions processing and returning code as text, which implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'process' entails (e.g., formatting, filtering). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.

  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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool confidently without additional context.

  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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'GitHub repository branch' but doesn't explain the 'repo_url' or 'branch' parameters beyond what's obvious from the names. It fails to add meaningful semantics, such as URL format or branch defaults, leaving parameters poorly documented.

  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 ('process and return') and resource ('code from a GitHub repository branch'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gitlab_repo' or 'get_local_repo' beyond specifying GitHub, which is somewhat implied by the tool name. This prevents a perfect score.

  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 'get_gitlab_repo' or 'get_local_repo', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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

• get_local_repoC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Process and return' but doesn't specify what processing entails (e.g., formatting, filtering, or error handling), the return format details, or any constraints like file size limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

  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 tool's complexity (processing and returning code), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Process' involves, the return format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively without guesswork.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter (repo_path) undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter, such as what 'repo_path' should be (e.g., a file system path, relative or absolute) or any examples. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

  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 ('Process and return') and resource ('code from a local repository as text'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_github_repo or get_gitlab_repo, which likely handle remote repositories instead of local 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_github_repo, get_gitlab_repo) or any alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid local repository path, and doesn't mention exclusions or specific use cases.

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