Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• track_progressC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Update' but does not disclose whether updates are incremental or replace, side effects, or validation rules. Lacks key behavioral details.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words, though could be more informative while remaining concise.

  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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should cover more context (e.g., return value, side effects). It is too brief for a tool with nested objects and required parameters.

  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 50% (only projectPath has a top-level description). The description adds no meaning to parameters; the progress object sub-fields have schema descriptions but not explained in the tool description. Fails to compensate for low coverage.

  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 it updates project progress and milestones, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., initialize_memory_bank, record_decision) as they target different aspects, but lacks explicit differentiation.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites or exclusions. Simply states action without usage context.

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

• initialize_memory_bankB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Initialize', which implies a setup operation, but does not mention whether it is destructive (e.g., overwriting existing structures), idempotent, or what files or directories are created. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the side effects.

  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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately concise.

  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?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about the resulting structure or any constraints. Could benefit from mentioning what exactly is created (e.g., files, folders) to achieve full clarity.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'projectPath', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter is self-explanatory. No enhancement is provided.

  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 ('Initialize') and resource ('Memory Bank structure'), making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_decision' or 'update_context', which have distinct purposes, so the score is 4 rather than 5.

  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, such as when a project is first set up or after adding a new project root. There are no contextual clues about prerequisites or scenarios where initialization should be avoided.

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

• update_contextB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update' but does not explain whether it merges or replaces, what happens to existing context, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. No unnecessary words are present.

  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 nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the update behavior (merge vs replace), return value, or error conditions, leaving important gaps.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions 'current session information', which aligns with the content.currentSession object, but doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.

  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 action ('Update') and the resource ('active context') with the specific information ('current session information'). It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and is distinguishable from sibling tools like initialize_memory_bank or record_decision.

  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 initialize_memory_bank or track_progress. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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

• record_decisionB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Add...' without detailing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions.

  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?

  Single sentence, no fluff, action placed first. Every word serves purpose.

  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?

  For a tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits what happens after adding (e.g., persistence, return value) and does not cover edge cases or side effects.

  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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Although the nested 'decision' object has detailed subfield descriptions, the top-level parameter 'decision' lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate for this 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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('technical decision') with specifics ('rationale and metadata'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'track_progress' or 'initialize_memory_bank'.

  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 recording decisions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria.

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