Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_filesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and describes the return format (list of dictionaries with name, size, type, path). However, it does not mention edge cases like permission errors, sorting, recursion, or whether paths are absolute/relative.

  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 Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence adds value: parameter explanations, return type, and practical usage examples. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity without redundant repetition of the schema.

  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, all-optional-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete. It documents all parameters, return values, and provides two examples. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer find_duplicates), and it does not mention potential errors, which slightly limits completeness.

  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 carries the full burden. It explains each parameter with meaningful detail beyond the schema: 'directory' defaults to current directory, 'pattern' shows example glob patterns, and 'include_hidden' controls hidden file visibility. The examples further clarify parameter usage.

  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 is specific: 'List files in a specified directory with optional filtering.' This clearly states the verb (list), resource (files in a directory), and scope (optional filtering). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on duplicates (find_duplicates, delete_duplicates) by focusing on basic file listing.

  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 through examples like list_files(directory='.', pattern='*.py') and parameter explanations, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling duplicate-related tools.

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

• delete_duplicatesA
  4.6/5.0
  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 the dry_run behavior, the copy-indicator detection logic, and the return type. However, it does not explicitly state that deletions are permanent or how originals are chosen when no copy indicator exists, which keeps it from a perfect score.

  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 a concise overview, a clear Args list, a Returns line, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  For a moderately complex tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, return value, and usage examples. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return values, so the description is complete.

  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?

  The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter, including its purpose, default value, and effect (e.g., dry_run prevents actual deletion). This fully compensates 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 clearly states the tool deletes duplicate files in a directory while keeping one copy. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the deletion action and the copy-indicator prioritization, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 used to delete duplicate files, with parameters controlling directory, recursion, and dry-run. It includes example calls showing preview and actual deletion, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools like find_duplicates.

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

• find_duplicatesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that duplicates are found via content hash, returns a dictionary, and shows default recursive behavior. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only or cover error handling, the operation's non-destructive nature is implied by 'Find duplicate files' and the described return format.

  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 and well-structured into Purpose, Args, Returns, and Example. Every section serves a purpose, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and includes examples. No critical information is missing.

  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?

  The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'directory' with default current directory and 'recursive' with default True, plus example usage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

  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?

  Description states 'Find duplicate files in a directory based on content hash' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'list_files' and 'delete_duplicates' by focusing on duplicate detection rather than listing or deletion.

  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 on what the tool does and includes parameter defaults and examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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