Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_worktreeA
  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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection, dependency installation, and .env copying, but does not cover prerequisites (e.g., existing git repo), error handling, or potential side effects.

  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 three sentences, front-loads the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output path. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a creation tool.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about automated setup beyond parameter descriptions, but does not significantly enhance parameter-level understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 creates a git worktree with automatic setup, including auto-detection of username, dependency installation, and .env copying. It distinguishes from siblings like list_worktrees or cleanup_worktree by focusing on creation.

  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 creating worktrees but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pr or list_worktrees. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

• list_worktreesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists output fields but does not mention read-only nature, prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repo), or potential errors. Adequate but could be more explicit.

  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-loading purpose and then details. No extraneous words; every sentence provides value.

  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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's output and behavior. Could mention requirement for git repository, but not essential.

  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 covers cwd parameter with description 'Optional: Working directory (defaults to current directory)'. Description adds no extra parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score is 3.

  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 verb 'List' and resource 'git worktrees', specifies output fields (branch, path, uncommitted changes, commits ahead/behind master), and distinguishes from sibling tools like cleanup_worktree and create_worktree.

  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?

  Describes what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like worktree_status or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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

• worktree_statusA
  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 describes the output content but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or return format. Adequate but not detailed.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

  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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and output. Minor omission: no mention of error conditions or return format, but still largely complete.

  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 one parameter fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a worktree'). It elaborates on what the status includes (clean, ahead/behind master, ready for PR), distinguishing it from siblings like list_worktrees or create_worktree.

  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 when to use (checking worktree status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• cleanup_worktreeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the removal action, optional branch deletion, and automatic cleanup of parent directories. Could mention error behavior or idempotency.

  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 concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a key behavioral detail.

  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 the main behavior and additional cleanup, but lacks details on error cases, return value, or preconditions. With no output schema, description could be slightly more complete.

  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?

  100% schema coverage provides basic parameter meanings. Description adds value by explaining the optional deleteBranch behavior and the automatic cleanup, going 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?

  Clearly states the verb (remove), resource (git worktree), and adds optional branch deletion and automatic cleanup of empty parent directories. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_worktree and list_worktrees.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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

• create_prA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-generation of title/body from commits and auth requirements. However, it does not mention whether the branch is pushed automatically, what happens on success/failure, or if any user confirmation is needed. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

  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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key behavioral and prerequisite details. Efficiently front-loaded.

  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?

  The description covers purpose and a key prerequisite, but lacks information on return value (e.g., does it return a PR URL?), error handling, and whether the branch is pushed. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context on what to expect after invocation.

  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 each parameter. The description repeats that title and body can be auto-generated, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'from the current worktree' could be clearer in relation to the worktreePath parameter.

  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 ('Create') and resource ('GitHub pull request from the current worktree'). It differentiates from sibling worktree management tools by focusing on PR creation and mentions auto-generation of title and body, which specifies its unique behavior.

  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 states a prerequisite: 'Requires GitHub authentication (GITHUB_TOKEN env var or gh CLI)'. It provides clear context that this tool is for creating PRs from worktrees, but does not specify when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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