Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• memory_contextA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting 'compact bounded context', implying the tool may limit output size. This goes beyond the annotation, though it could be more explicit about whether state is affected or if data is cached. No contradiction with annotations.

  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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No superfluous words; each sentence adds unique information. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

  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?

  Considering 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, how sections filter memory, or the behavior of format. The sibling 'memory' is not differentiated in usage. The tool needs more context for an agent to use it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. It hints at 'compact bounded context' which relates to maxChars and possibly format, but does not clarify what 'sections' represent or how format options differ. Agents would lack understanding of each parameter's semantics.

  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 'Load memory' and the resource 'memory', specifying the context 'for session start'. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'memory' by highlighting 'compact bounded context for clients with small prompt budgets', which implies a focused subset.

  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 at session start and for clients with small prompt budgets, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling 'memory' as an alternative. The guidance is suggestive but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons.

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

• memoryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes operations and constraints (e.g., max lengths) but does not mention side effects, save guarantees, or performance impacts.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections for commands, sections, and examples. Slightly verbose due to listing all sections, but the structure aids readability.

  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?

  Covers all 11 parameters with examples and command details. No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently explains what each command does. However, it does not describe return values or error handling.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters by command and provides examples, which adds some value but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's parameter 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?

  Clearly states it manages persistent memory across sessions. Lists specific commands (view, add, upsert, remove, replace) and sections, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'memory_context' which likely provides context retrieval.

  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?

  Provides explicit commands and sections, but does not contrast with the sibling 'memory_context' to clarify when to use this tool vs. the other. However, the examples and command list make usage clear.

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