Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• event_reportB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an append (non-destructive), writes to a dated local file, and is network-free ('No network.'). However, it does not explain return values, error behavior, file creation, or whether appends are atomic, which are relevant for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

  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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and destination are front-loaded, and the extra 'No network.' sentence adds distinct behavioral value without redundancy.

  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 has nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this minimal description is not enough. An agent would still be uncertain about required field semantics, how to construct a valid telemetry line, and what happens after the append.

  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 description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the nine parameters. The phrase 'telemetry line' provides only a general context; the agent still gets no help understanding fields like 'blocked,' 'touched,' or 'confidence' beyond their names and enums.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Append a telemetry line to akis/YYYY-MM-DD.jsonl.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the fact-oriented siblings (fact_search, fact_read, fact_propose) by indicating it is for telemetry recording, not fact operations.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state that this is for reporting events as opposed to reading facts, nor does it mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'telemetry.'

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

• fact_searchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses default filtering of retired/rotten facts, the archive override, ranking order, and a special warning for boundary facts. It stops short of describing return structure or pagination, but the stated behaviors are genuinely informative.

  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 terse and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler. Minor ambiguity in 'boundary facts' and the lack of an explicit response overview keep it from a perfect score.

  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?

  Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors but leaves gaps: 'boundary facts' is undefined, authorization requirements are vague, and the meaning of scope values is only partially addressed. It is workable but not fully complete for a standalone definition.

  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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for archive behavior and ranking, but most parameter semantics are already present in the schema. It does not explain limit defaults or query matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  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 opens with 'Search stored facts,' clearly identifying a specific verb and resource. It also adds scope details like archive filtering and ranking, which help distinguish it from reading a single fact or proposing a new fact, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

  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 implies the tool is used when searching facts, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer fact_search over fact_read or other siblings. It mentions 'Authorization required' as a prerequisite but gives no exclusions or alternative-selection cues.

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

• fact_readA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context about body escaping and retired-fact fields, which is beyond the bare 'read' meaning. However, it omits behavior for missing facts, errors, authorization requirements, or response shape.

  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, with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. The behavioral note about escaping and retired facts earns its place.

  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 single-fact read tool, the description covers key lookup semantics and a special retired-fact case. But with no output schema and no annotation, it does not describe what happens when the uid is invalid or the result is empty, and it fails to mention when to choose fact_search instead.

  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 50%: agent is documented but uid is not. The description adds some meaning by indicating the uid identifies the fact to read, but it does not elaborate on uid format or the agent parameter beyond what the schema already says.

  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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Read one fact by uid.' It identifies the exact lookup method (by uid), which distinguishes it from fact_search, though it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast them.

  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 the tool is used when you have a fact's uid, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer fact_search or the other siblings. It does not state alternatives or exclusions, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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

• fact_proposeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that secret patterns are rejected before any write, matching text is never returned, type=boundary is always quarantined, and fake mcp:// sources are not injected. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema or tool name. Some gaps remain around authentication failures and persistence guarantees, but the most important safety behavior is covered.

  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?

  Three dense, information-bearing sentences with the operation front-loaded and constraints following. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary background. Every sentence adds either operational meaning or safety-critical context.

  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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical write-path safety rules and destination details. However, it omits usage-selection guidance, return behavior, and the meaning of several optional fields, leaving the agent somewhat undersupplied for a fully confident invocation.

  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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for type (boundary is always quarantined) and source (real evidence only, no mcp:// injection), but title, body, topic, world, and agent semantics are left mostly to inference. This is partial compensation, not full coverage of the parameter space.

  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?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'Write a draft fact under kasa/_oneriler/ (or quarantine)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings fact_search, fact_read, and event_report, which are read/search/report operations. The write operation and destination path leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  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 the tool is for writing facts by using the verb 'Write', but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over fact_search, fact_read, or event_report, nor when not to use it. It provides behavioral constraints rather than selection criteria, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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