Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_contentA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: respects .gitignore, skips binary files, smart case-sensitivity, and requires ripgrep. It also explains the context_lines parameter's effect. It could mention limitations or performance considerations for a 5.

  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 front-loaded with purpose and is fairly concise. The inclusion of install commands and examples is helpful but could be slightly trimmed for conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

  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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core usage but doesn't explain all parameters (e.g., detail_level) or the exact return format. It provides enough for basic use but lacks completeness for advanced scenarios.

  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 baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds value through query examples and context_lines default, but does not explain parameters like detail_level or exclude 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 it is a tool for searching file contents with surrounding context, explicitly positioning it as an alternative to grep. The verb 'search' and resource 'file contents' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like fuzzy_find and search_files by focusing on content search with context lines.

  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 says 'USE INSTEAD OF GREP' and provides specific use cases (finding implementations, tracing function calls). However, it does not contrast with sibling tools (fuzzy_find, search_files, tree) or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, which would make it a 5.

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

• search_filesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description details behavioral traits: respects .gitignore, skips binary files, filters by size/date, handles symlinks safely, and notes that detail_level='full' provides content previews without extra calls.

  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 two paragraphs plus examples, front-loaded with key purpose and usage advice. It is fairly concise, though minor restructuring could improve scanability.

  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?

  With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, behavioral traits, and key parameter hints. It omits return format details, but the mention of previews and examples partially compensates.

  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% and already describes each parameter well. The description adds value by explaining the effect of detail_level='full' and providing examples, but does not significantly augment 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 explicitly states 'Find files by pattern with built-in previews - eliminates follow-up read calls.' and contrasts with 'glob/find', clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose and scope.

  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 advises 'USE INSTEAD OF GLOB/FIND' and provides examples, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fuzzy_find, search_content, or tree, nor specify when not to use.

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

• fuzzy_findA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by match quality and that it's faster than glob. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, whether it indexes files, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 concise (~80 words), well-structured with a bolded usage guideline, followed by explanation, comparison, and examples. Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with no redundancy.

  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 5 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, comparison, and examples. It does not describe the output format in detail, but the detail_level parameter implies variable output. A minor gap exists, but overall it's sufficient for effective tool selection.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the query parameter and explaining the detail_level options. This goes beyond bare descriptions, helping the agent choose appropriate values.

  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 tool performs fuzzy filename search, using specific verbs like 'Fuzzy search' and resource 'filenames'. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'glob with wildcards' and mentioning alternatives like 'search_content' and 'search_files' implicitly through context.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'USE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE EXACT FILENAME' and highlights that it's faster than glob for guessing. Provides examples to illustrate typical use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context makes it clear that exact name searches should use other tools.

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

• treeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes configurable depth to prevent overwhelming output, default path behavior, and options for including hidden files or directories only. It implies read-only nature but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness.

  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 front-loaded with the key instruction "USE INSTEAD OF LS/FIND FOR STRUCTURE." It is informative but slightly verbose with multiple sections; could be more concise.

  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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential usage: purpose, when to use, and configuration. It lacks explanation of output format, but the tool's behavior (tree output) is conventionally understood.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; it only gives usage context.

  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 "USE INSTEAD OF LS/FIND FOR STRUCTURE" and "Visualize directory layout without multiple commands," specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fuzzy_find, search_content, and search_files by focusing on directory structure.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says "Use this first when exploring a new codebase," implying when to use. It also provides when-not-to-use by contrasting with other tools and gives example queries like "Show me the project structure."

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