Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• aboutA
  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 of disclosing behavior. 'What is known' suggests a read-only retrieval operation, which is useful, but it does not state what happens for unknown entities, whether any side effects occur, or whether special permissions/identifiers are needed.

  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 clear sentence with no filler, and the core semantic ('what is known about one thing') is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundant phrasing.

  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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate: it names the input concept and implies retrieval. But it leaves the parameter format ambiguous and gives no routing guidance relative to 'search' and 'remember', which are the main completeness 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?

  The input schema provides only a required property named 'thing' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by defining the parameter as a file, person, or topic, but it does not specify the expected format, identifier type, or how to distinguish between those referent kinds.

  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 conveys a lookup-style tool for a single referent ('What is known about one thing') and gives concrete examples ('a file, a person, a topic') that clarify the resource scope. It is distinguishable from the siblings 'search' and 'remember' by emphasizing facts about one entity rather than discovering or storing, though it does not name the siblings directly and uses the vague word 'thing'.

  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?

  Usage is implied: use this tool when you need known information about a single file, person, or topic. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer 'search' for broader discovery or 'remember' for storing knowledge, and the siblings are not mentioned in the description.

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

• rememberA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 goes beyond the schema by disclosing that claimed facts are withheld from other agents, that the claim releases when work finishes or after half an hour, and that plain facts are readable by everyone. This is meaningful, non-obvious behavior.

  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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then only the claiming nuance that materially affects how the tool behaves. It is not bloated, though the typo 'knos' is a minor polish issue.

  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?

  The essential write-and-claim semantics are well covered, and because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, given the locking/timeout complexity and no annotations, a complete definition should also explain the required 'about' parameter and perhaps give an example of a fact/about pair.

  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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly explains 'claiming' and clarifies that a 'plain fact' is a shared note, but it never defines the required 'about' parameter or the expected shape/scope of 'fact'. This partial compensation leaves one required parameter ambiguous.

  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 first sentence identifies a concrete action — 'Write something back' so future sessions know it — and the rest clarifies that this is a shared note versus a claimed work item, which separates storing from searching. The resource is a bit vague ('something'), but the required fact/about parameters and the write-vs-claim distinction make the core purpose clear.

  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 overall use case is implied: persist information so a future session can read it. It gives clear advice on setting 'claiming' when starting work instead of merely recording a fact, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling tools 'search' or 'about' or states when not to use remember.

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

• searchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it excels. It discloses the withholding behavior (you get the holder, not the answer), provenance labeling ("Every result names where it came from"), the audit side effect of override ("recorded in the journal against your name"), and the access-scoping behavior of on_behalf_of ("They see only the folders they were actually shared"). These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

  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 three paragraphs but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each paragraph has a distinct job: scope, withholding/override policy, and teammate parameter. It is slightly long, but every sentence carries substantive information and none is filler.

  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 an output schema exists (covering return values), the description covers the tricky semantics well: search scope, source attribution, contention handling, override auditing, and teammate scoping. The main remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any guidance about result ordering or what happens on empty results — minor given the overall richness.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for override (purpose + journaling side effect) and on_behalf_of (teammate context + visibility scoping), which are the two non-obvious parameters. Query is only implied by the tool name and opening sentence, and limit — its default, purpose, or effect on result volume — is never mentioned. Partial compensation for a 4-parameter tool.

  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 specific verb and resource: "Search this machine's memory of the repo: past agent sessions, commits and code structure." The scope is concrete and the added note that every result names its source further clarifies behavior. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings 'about' and 'remember', so differentiation must be inferred rather than stated.

  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 gives clear conditional guidance: when another agent holds claimed work, the agent should "Ask them, or pick up something else," and override is only for when the agent "genuinely must have it." It also explains when on_behalf_of applies (working for a teammate). It does not explicitly state when to prefer the sibling tools 'about' or 'remember', leaving that routing implicit.

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