Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• phionyx_causal_traceB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only says 'Validate a causal debugging chain' without detailing side effects, required permissions, return format (despite having an output schema), or what 'validation' entails.

  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 concise, with the purpose and usage stated upfront, followed by parameter details. However, the structure could be improved by separating guidance from parameter examples.

  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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, has output schema), the description is partially complete: it explains what and when, but omits what validation produces and any behavioral details, requiring the agent to infer from context.

  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?

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by providing concrete examples for both parameters, including the arrow-separated format for causal_chain, which clarifies usage beyond the schema.

  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: 'Validate a causal debugging chain' and when to call it ('when investigating a bug'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like phionyx_verify_claim by focusing on causal chains.

  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?

  It provides a basic usage guideline ('Call when investigating a bug'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• phionyx_session_reportA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. For a summary report, read-only is likely but not stated.

  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 a single, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with 'Session summary' and lists key elements without fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise for a no-parameter tool.

  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 no parameters and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description adequately outlines the report contents. However, it does not specify when to invoke this tool (e.g., after certain operations), leaving some contextual gaps.

  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?

  No parameters exist in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by enumerating the content of the report (claims, directives, etc.), compensating for the lack of param details. Baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the name.

  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 states 'Session summary' and lists specific components (claims, directives, drift metrics, evidence taxonomy, physics state), clearly indicating a summary report tool. It distinguishes from siblings like phionyx_causal_trace or phionyx_verify_claim, which focus on specific aspects.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as phionyx_causal_trace or phionyx_verify_claim. The description implies it is for an overview, but lacks context or exclusionary criteria.

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

• phionyx_verify_pathsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It states that the tool returns discrepancies, trust score, and warnings, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is helpful, though the first sentence could be slightly tightened. Overall, every sentence contributes value without significant 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 that an output schema exists (context confirms), the description adequately covers the tool's function and return types (discrepancies, trust score, warnings). For a tool with two parameters and no nested objects, this is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

  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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds explicit semantics: claimed_affected and claimed_tested are comma-separated paths. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the raw schema, though more detail (e.g., path format requirements) could be added.

  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: cross-check claimed code paths against git diff reality. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('paths'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on path verification against git diff, while siblings like verify_claim may handle other claim types.

  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 tells when to call the tool ('to verify your own declarations'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling list, some implicit differentiation exists, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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

• phionyx_checkpointA
  4.4/5.0
  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 that it's cheap, no git diff, no verification, and for telemetry density. Could mention side effects or return behavior, but 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?

  Concise: two sentences for purpose and usage, then parameter description. Front-loaded key info with no wasted words.

  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?

  Tool is simple with one optional param. Description covers when, what, and behavioral traits. No explanation of return value, but output schema likely covers it. Sufficient for its simplicity.

  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?

  Only parameter 'context' has 0% schema description coverage, but description explains its purpose: 'Brief note of what you're doing' with example. Adds value beyond 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 states 'Lightweight physics state snapshot', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'phionyx_verify_claim' by emphasizing frequency and cheapness.

  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 states when to call: 'after completing any subtask, before switching context, or when reporting progress'. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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

• phionyx_verify_claimA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details three verification layers, require_tool logic based on evidence type, continuity checks with read_paths, and environment variable effects. Highly transparent.

  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 lengthy but well-structured with sections and bullet points. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated mention of three layers, but it is necessary for clarity. Front-loaded with primary purpose.

  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 7 parameters, 5 required, and complex gate logic, the description covers all key aspects: layers, require_tool conditions, continuity checks, and environment variables. Very complete for the tool's complexity.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter's role in verification layers, including optionality of read_paths and the impact of evidence_type on require_tool. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

  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 verifies a completion claim using three-layer verification. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the purpose is specific and actionable.

  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 instructs to call BEFORE saying 'fixed' or 'done', and provides detailed conditions for require_tool and continuity checks. It lacks explicit alternatives among sibling tools but gives clear usage context.

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

• phionyx_response_gateA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses thresholds, directive outcomes, and special behaviors like require_tool and continuity_binding, including environment variable effects. This meets the high standard for transparency.

  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 well-structured with sections and front-loaded purpose, but it is verbose. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing critical details. It earns its place given complexity.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description covers all behavioral aspects and parameter semantics. Given the tool's complexity with multiple action types and special cases, the description is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It explains all 7 parameters: action_type values, confidence range, evidence_count, evidence_type linking to verify_claim, affects_user_facing boolean, and conditional usage of artifact_references and artifact_paths_read. This adds significant meaning 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 it is a 'response revision gate with action-type-specific thresholds' and instructs to 'Call before committing.' The verb 'call' and resource 'response' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing unique thresholds and directives.

  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 when-to-use guidance for each action type, including special cases like 'ask_question' and 'make_claim'. It also instructs to call before committing and explains the conditions for each directive, aiding proper selection.

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