Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_coverageB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, not what the output is, whether it's a read or write operation, or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about return format and safety.

  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?

  A single 10-word sentence is highly concise and front-loaded. It could include a bit more detail (e.g., output nature) without losing efficiency.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the comparison result contains (e.g., diff, summary), leaving a significant gap for a tool with 4 required parameters.

  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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter insights, so baseline 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 explicitly states 'compare coverage between two git references', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_commit_coverage (single commit) and get_repo_coverage (single repo) by focusing on comparison of two references.

  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 for comparing two references but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclude cases like single reference queries.

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

• get_file_coverageB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it returns data, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like potential for missing ref errors, pagination, or performance. Could mention that it reads from repository and may be slow for large files.

  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, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then return info. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  No output schema, so description should compensate with details on return structure. It mentions 'coverage percentages and line-level hit/miss information' but doesn't specify exact fields or format.

  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 parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specific file'. 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'line-by-line coverage data for a specific file'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_coverage' and 'get_repo_coverage' by focusing on a single file.

  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 ('for a specific file'), but no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., compare_coverage for comparing branches). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

• get_repo_coverageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states it retrieves statistics without disclosing side effects, required permissions, api limits, or performance implications. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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?

  Single sentence with no redundant information. Purpose is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

  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?

  With no output schema, description does not specify what 'overall coverage statistics' includes (e.g., line coverage, branch coverage). Could be more complete to set agent expectations.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds semantic value by noting the branch parameter defaults to the repository's default branch, which is not evident from the schema alone.

  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 ('get'), resource ('overall coverage statistics for a repository'), and an optional parameter (branch). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on comparisons, commits, files, or pull requests.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like compare_coverage or get_commit_coverage. Lacks explicit context for selection criteria.

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

• get_commit_coverageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns data, but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Basic but insufficient for a tool with no other metadata.

  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 extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and instantly communicates the tool's function.

  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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, without output schema, more detail on the structure of 'file-level changes' could be helpful.

  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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'coverage data for a specific commit', including what is returned (overall coverage percentage and file-level changes). This effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_coverage' or 'get_repo_coverage'.

  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 a specific commit, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like 'compare_coverage' or 'get_pull_request_coverage'. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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

• get_pull_request_coverageA
  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 carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('get') and mentions the data included, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose error conditions or permissions 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?

  A single well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, containing no unnecessary words.

  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 data retrieval tool with three well-schemaed parameters, the description conveys the key output (coverage changes and file-level impact) and scope. It could be improved by specifying return format or linking to an output schema, but it is sufficient for its simplicity.

  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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 explicitly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'coverage data for a specific pull request', and the scope 'including coverage changes and file-level impact', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_repo_coverage or get_commit_coverage.

  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 implies use for pull request coverage but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or compare to alternatives such as compare_coverage. It provides clear context for its intended use.

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