Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_memoryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions error conditions (ValueError) and the return format, but does not explicitly state that the operation is destructive and irreversible. The risk is partially covered by the error handling.

  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 well-structured with separate sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It is concise, but the Japanese text may reduce clarity for non-Japanese users. The information is front-loaded.

  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 simplicity of the tool (single required parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, error conditions, and return value. It is complete for this level of complexity.

  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 schema only defines 'memory_id' as an integer with no description (0% coverage). The description adds clear meaning: the ID must be 1 or greater, and it is the identifier of the memory to delete. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

  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 ('delete memory') and the resource (memory). It is distinct from sibling tools like save_memory, search_memory, and list_sessions, which have different purposes.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use delete_memory versus other tools. It only describes the technical behavior without contextualizing its role in a workflow.

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

• save_memoryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that content must be 1-100,000 characters and raises ValueError if invalid. It also specifies the return format. However, it does not mention if the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing data, or any authentication requirements. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

  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 with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 save tool with three parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the input constraints, default values, and output format. It lacks details on whether session_id must pre-exist or if the tool overwrites, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: content (text with length constraints), session_id (identifier), and source (default 'manual'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions.

  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 'Save memory' (保存する) with specific arguments for content, session_id, and source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_memory, list_sessions, and delete_memory by focusing on saving a new memory entry.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the tool's function without mentioning prerequisites or when not to use it. The sibling names imply distinct operations, but no direct comparison is given.

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

• search_memoryA
  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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It details the hybrid search method, time decay, score ordering, and exact exceptions (ValueError for invalid parameters). It does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but the context (search) implies no mutation.

  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, using structured Markdown sections (Args, Returns, Raises). It front-loads the core hybrid search concept and uses minimal sentences with maximum information, leaving no wasted words.

  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 complexity (hybrid search with multiple techniques and time decay), the description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, output format with fields and sorting, and error conditions. The output schema exists and is described, so return values are fully documented.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' as search query string and 'top_k' as max results with default and range. Additionally, it specifies validation constraints (top_k 1-100, query max 4096) and errors, adding significant semantic value beyond the bare 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 specifies 'hybrid search (FTS + vector + RRF + time decay)' stating the verb (search) and resource (memory). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific search technique, which is unique among save, list, and delete operations.

  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 use for searching memories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (save_memory, list_sessions, delete_memory). It lacks exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions, relying on tool names for differentiation.

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

• list_sessionsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool is read-only, does not trigger model initialization, returns results sorted by last update, and raises ValueError for invalid limit values. This provides clear behavioral expectations beyond the schema, though additional details like pagination or response structure are already given in Returns.

  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 (Args, Returns, Raises). Every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, behavior, parameter guidance, error info. No unnecessary words.

  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 (1 parameter, no required params, output schema in description), the description fully covers purpose, usage, constraints, error handling, and return format. Sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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?

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning by explaining the 'limit' parameter: maximum number to return (default 20, must be >=1) and that ValueError is raised if limit is <1 or >200. This covers constraints and error handling.

  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 'セッション一覧を返す（直近更新順）', meaning 'Returns list of sessions (most recently updated first)'. It specifies the verb (返す/returns), resource (セッション一覧/list of sessions), and sorting order, distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_memory, search_memory, and delete_memory.

  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 explains that this is a read-only operation that does not cause model initialization, guiding when to use it for safe, lightweight queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings, though the context signals indicate it is distinct.

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