Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• stickies_writeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions persistence and cross-session retention, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details such as permissions required, whether it creates a new note or updates an existing one, TTL behavior (though the schema hints at it), and any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

  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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Create a persistent sticky note') and then provides usage context. There is zero filler or redundancy.

  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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the purpose and trigger condition, and the schema covers parameter details, but it lacks behavioral context like TTL, lifecycle, and side effects. It is adequate but has clear 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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters (content, category, tags, importance, project_path). The description adds minimal extra meaning by listing category values (decision, blocker, etc.), but these duplicate the schema enum. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Create' and a clear resource 'persistent sticky note', which directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools stickies_read and stickies_dismiss. The phrase 'durable fact emerges' further clarifies the write intent.

  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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this when a durable fact emerges... that future sessions should retain.' It provides clear context and categories of durable facts, but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• stickies_dismissA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explicitly disclosing that this is a soft-delete (not a hard delete), that it marks the item as dismissed, and that dismissed stickies are no longer read back. It could add idempotency or permission details, but the key behavioral trait is clearly communicated.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys both the action and its consequence.

  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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the outcome. It does not discuss reversal or error behavior, but given the low complexity and schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

  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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id and optional reason), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('soft-delete') with a specific resource ('a sticky by id') and explains the effect ('marks it dismissed; it is no longer read back'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stickies_read and stickies_write.

  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 when to use the tool (when a sticky should no longer be read back) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of using stickies_write for other mutations, so guidance is only implied.

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

• stickies_readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that only 'active' stickies are returned and that results are ordered by importance, which is useful filtering behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (beyond the verb 'Retrieve'), nor does it explain what 'active' means or how 'relevance' is determined.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

  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 read tool with well-documented schema and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the essential purpose and key behavioral traits. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'active' means or what the response looks like, but the core functionality is adequately conveyed.

  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%, so all parameters (limit, project_path, include_global, min_importance) are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small semantic link by mentioning 'ordered by importance,' which relates to min_importance, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 states the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('active stickies'), the scope ('current session'), and the ordering ('by importance'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stickies_write and stickies_dismiss, making the 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 on when to use the tool: to retrieve active stickies relevant to the current session, with a specific ordering. It implies use for reading existing stickies rather than creating or dismissing them, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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