Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_componentA
  3.5/5.0
  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. 'Add a new component' implies mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, file system changes, required permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies an existing project.

  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, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  The tool supports multiple component types, but the description gives no specifics on prerequisites, behavioral effects of adding each type, or post-addition steps. With no annotations and only a brief overview, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool of this complexity.

  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%. The description does not explain the 'config' parameter or its nested fields (project_dir, component, name, fields). Although the schema itself contains property descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for the zero coverage and adds no parameter-level meaning.

  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 'Add a new component to an existing scaffolded project' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates supported component types (API routers, database models, frontend pages, GitHub Actions, Docker services), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project and configure_project.

  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 clear context: it is for adding to an existing project, implying it is not for creating new projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for new project creation or configuration.

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

• create_projectA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the key use_current_dir behavior and notes that a summary of created files is returned. However, it omits potential side effects like file creation in existing directories (unless empty), overwrite risks, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a scaffold tool.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise behavior note. Each sentence adds value: the scaffold summary, the return value, and the use_current_dir exception. No wasted words.

  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 the tool's complexity, the description provides a good high-level overview of what is scaffolded and the return value. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be detailed. It lacks a bit of depth on prerequisites or side effects, but for a complex scaffold tool, it is reasonably 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% since the description does not explain the config object or its many sub-parameters. The description only mentions output_dir and use_current_dir indirectly. The schema itself has detailed descriptions, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for all config semantics.

  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 starts with a specific verb ('Scaffold') and clearly identifies the resource: a complete new project including API, frontend, database config, Docker, and CI/CD. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_project and add_component by focusing on initial project creation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for creating new projects, and the use_current_dir note provides a conditional usage detail. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use configure_project to modify an existing project'), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• get_project_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 explicitly says 'Read' and lists the returned configuration fields (project type, frontend type, deployment target, components), making it clear this is a non-mutating inspection tool. However, it does not mention error behavior or edge cases (e.g., if the project does not exist), so it is transparent but not exhaustive.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. It is concise, contains no redundant information, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

  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?

  For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and implies the prerequisite that the project must already exist. It does not elaborate on failure modes, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the availability of an output schema.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, project_dir, with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project root to inspect'). The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema for the parameter itself; it focuses on return values, which are already covered by the output schema. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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's purpose: 'Read an existing scaffolded project and return its configuration'. It is specific with a verb ('Read') and resource ('scaffolded project'), and it distinguishes from siblings like create_project, configure_project, and add_component by establishing a read-only inspection role.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for reading an existing project's configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It says 'existing scaffolded project', which hints at a prerequisite, but no direct guidance or mention of sibling tools is given.

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

• validate_projectA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reports missing files and suggests fixes, which conveys the non-destructive output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes to the project, which would be a valuable clarification for a validation tool. The absence of an explicit 'read-only' claim leaves a minor ambiguity.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by output details. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 (one param, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently conveys the tool's role in the project lifecycle relative to siblings. A note about typical invocation timing (e.g., after create_project) could enhance completeness, but the current description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project root to validate'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying that the project is scaffolded. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enrich parameter understanding further.

  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 states a clear, specific action ('Validate that a scaffolded project has all expected files and correct structure') and names the resource ('scaffolded project'). It also adds detail about the outcome ('Reports missing files and suggests fixes'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or configure_project.

  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 context of use is clear: it is for validating a scaffolded project, implying it should be used after scaffolding. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the read-only validation nature is evident from the verb 'validate' and the mention of reporting, which sufficiently differentiates it from creation/configuration tools.

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

• list_templatesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly indicates the tool returns a list of templates and their descriptions, and the verb 'List' implicitly signals a read-only operation appropriate for this query tool. However, it does not explicitly mention side-effect-freeness or other behavioral nuances.

  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, concise sentence of about 8 words, front-loading the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant information.

  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?

  The tool is simple (no parameters, no annotations) and has an output schema, so the description only needs to convey the scope and output type. 'List all available project template combinations and their descriptions' fully satisfies this requirement, making the tool adequately described.

  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?

  The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; it simply states that all templates are listed, which is consistent with the empty 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all available project template combinations' and includes output details ('their descriptions'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_project and create_project by focusing solely on enumeration.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'all available' implies the tool is used for discovery before project configuration or creation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It neither mentions exclusions nor names specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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

• configure_projectA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns questions and does not itself create the project (by directing to call create_project afterward). This implies a non-mutating behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention permissions. The sequential flow makes the behavior transparent enough for the agent.

  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: three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core function, the second gives the critical usage instruction, and the third provides the next step. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the when-to-use, and the follow-up action. The output schema handles return value details, and the description doesn't need to explain them. The workflow is fully captured.

  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?

  The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter info, but no parameters exist, so nothing is missing. The description's focus on workflow adequately compensates for any potential ambiguity.

  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's function: 'Returns structured questions for configuring a new project.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('structured questions'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the first step before create_project, unlike list_templates or other tools.

  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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when a user wants to create a project.' It also provides the full workflow: present questions, collect answers, then call create_project. This clearly separates it from alternatives and instructs the agent on sequencing.

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