Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_filesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains the query syntax extensively, it doesn't address key behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (format, pagination), error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description focuses on syntax but misses operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but then becomes a lengthy syntax reference. While the syntax examples are helpful, they might be better placed in parameter documentation. The description could be more concise by focusing on high-level guidance rather than duplicating detailed syntax that's already in the schema.

  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 search tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how to structure queries. However, it lacks information about result format, error handling, and operational constraints. The completeness is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds query syntax examples that complement the schema's query parameter documentation, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for the other parameters (limit, offset, directory, type). The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for terms in files using KDE baloosearch.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('files'), and technology ('KDE baloosearch'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'show_file_words', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the sibling tool 'show_file_words' in the context, but doesn't explain how they differ or when to choose one over the other. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

• show_file_wordsA
  3.8/5.0
  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 discloses the tool's behavior as a retrieval operation ('retrieves all the indexed words & meta-data'), which implies it's read-only and non-destructive. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, indexing status requirements, or error conditions. It adds some context about the Baloo system but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

  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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and context. The first sentence introduces the tool and technology, while the second elaborates on what it retrieves. There's minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating with the first.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the technology involved, but doesn't cover output format, error handling, or dependencies on the Baloo indexing status. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'path', clearly documenting it as 'The absolute path to the file to show indexed words & meta-data for'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'from a specific file' but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With 0 parameters beyond the documented one, the baseline is appropriately high.

  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 specific action ('retrieves all the indexed words & meta-data'), the resource ('from a specific file'), and the technology context ('using KDE balooshow', 'indexed by KDE's Baloo search system'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search_files' by focusing on showing content from a single file rather than searching across files.

  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 context by mentioning 'indexed by KDE's Baloo search system', suggesting the tool is for files already indexed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_files' or provide any exclusion criteria. The 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.