Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• initA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that initialization creates files and directories, and that re-running without force returns status. However, it does not detail whether overwriting is destructive, permissions needed, or what 'current status' means exactly.

  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?

  Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the purpose, second details artifacts, third covers re-invocation and force flag. Information is front-loaded.

  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 it is a simple setup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and idempotency. It could mention output format but is sufficient for an agent.

  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%, and description adds value by explaining the 'force' parameter: 'use force: true to overwrite'. This provides context beyond the schema's default value.

  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 'Initialize' and the resource 'aidflow' in the current project, listing specific artifacts created (.aidflow/ directory, config, guides, skills). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'guide' or 'plan' which are post-setup tools.

  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 'Call this once when first using aidflow' and explains the behavior on re-initialization (returns current status unless force=true). This guides when to use and when to avoid, though it does not compare with alternatives.

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

• guideA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses core behavior: listing excludes _-prefixed guides, reading by topic, and auto-detection of session. It lacks details on error handling or resource usage, but is still informative.

  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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is concise yet packs essential information without verbosity.

  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 no output schema, the description explains list and read behavior but does not specify list output format or error handling. Still, it covers the main functionality adequately.

  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 baseline 3. The description adds meaning: topic is without .md, action defaults to list, session auto-detects. This goes beyond the schema, earning a 4.

  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 accesses project guide documents, with explicit sub-actions list and read. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (init, plan, etc.) by focusing on guide access.

  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 guidance on when to use list versus read, and mentions proactive reading for context-matching guides. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or alternative tools.

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

• planA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but the description discloses that 'create' involves a structured workflow with HITL via AskUserQuestion, codebase research, and writing plan.md. 'get' provides checkbox-based progress. This is transparent but could mention any side effects or limitations.

  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?

  Concise with bullet points for actions and a usage note. Slightly verbose in the 'create' description but overall efficient. No wasted sentences.

  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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, actions, usage guidelines, and workflow. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

  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% with descriptions. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the workflow for each action and auto-detection of session. It enhances understanding of parameters.

  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 manages session work plans with two distinct actions (create/get). It specifies the workflow for 'create' (requirements gathering, research, plan.md) and distinguishes from siblings like 'guide' and 'init'.

  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?

  Explicit guidance provided: 'Optional - skip for simple bug fixes. Use for medium/large tasks that benefit from upfront planning.' This tells when to use and when to skip, with an alternative implied.

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

• sessionA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: optional git worktree creation, archiving to history, prompting for cleanup on complete. However, it doesn't detail error states (e.g., if a session name already exists) or exact side effects of each action.

  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 well-structured with bullet points and a concise summary sentence. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff.

  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 the tool's complexity (4 params, one enum) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It covers the main workflows but lacks details on return values or error handling, which would improve completeness.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each action enum value and specifying that worktree defaults to config.worktree.auto. The name and force parameters are already well-described in the schema, so the description provides moderate additional 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 explicitly states the tool manages development sessions and lists four specific actions (create, list, status, complete) with brief explanations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'guide' or 'plan' which have different purposes.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Start with create when beginning work, end with complete when done.' It also indicates when to use each action (e.g., 'list: Show all active sessions') and implies alternatives by context.

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

• select_serviceA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains behaviors like auto-selection on list, session binding, and global selection. Missing details on what state changes occur upon selection, but overall adequate.

  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?

  Description is concise with a clear structure: a brief intro followed by bullet-pointed actions and usage notes. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers all actions, parameters, and usage context. It explains the tool's role in the workflow adequately.

  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?

  All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds contextual meaning, especially for the 'action' enum and the 'session' parameter, clarifying their roles 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 tool's purpose: selecting a target service in a multi-service workspace. It lists three specific actions (list, select, status) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the service selection mechanism.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this before other tools (session, plan, guide) when working in a multi-service workspace.' It also notes that single-service projects auto-select, indicating when not to use explicitly.

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