Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• subscribeC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Subscribe to changes' implies a monitoring/notification function, it doesn't describe what kind of changes trigger notifications, how notifications are delivered, whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens when multiple subscriptions exist. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely establishes ongoing monitoring.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

  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?

  For a subscription tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'subscribing' entails operationally, what format notifications take, how to manage subscriptions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of establishing monitoring and the complete lack of structured documentation, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

  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 for the single 'path' parameter, the description provides no additional semantic information about what the path represents, its format, or constraints. The description mentions 'file or directory' which gives some context for the path parameter, but this is minimal compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

  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 action ('Subscribe to changes') and target resource ('on a file or directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'subscribe_default', which appears to be a related subscription tool, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'subscribe_default' or 'list_watched'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between subscription-related tools.

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

• unsubscribeC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Unsubscribe from changes') but doesn't explain what 'changes' refers to, whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens after unsubscribing (e.g., notifications stop). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for informed tool selection and invocation.

  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?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'a file or directory' but doesn't clarify what the 'path' parameter represents (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition.

  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 action ('Unsubscribe from changes') and the target resource ('on a file or directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'subscribe' or 'subscribe_default', which would require mentioning what makes 'unsubscribe' different from those subscription tools.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_watched' or when not to use it. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing subscription) or contextual cues for selection among sibling tools, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

• subscribe_defaultB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('subscribe') but doesn't explain what subscription entails (e.g., real-time updates, notifications, persistence), permissions required, side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like operation.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element ('subscribe', 'default', 'watched.txt file', 'development') contributes meaning without redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings like 'subscribe'. For a subscription tool with mutation implications, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist to document.

  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 action ('subscribe') and target resource ('default watched.txt file for development'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (which likely allows custom targets) or 'list_watched'/'unsubscribe', but the specificity of 'default' provides some implicit differentiation.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'subscribe' (for non-default files) or 'list_watched' (for viewing subscriptions). The description implies it's for development purposes, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases compared to siblings.

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

• list_watchedA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('List') but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how data is returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that likely interacts with subscription systems.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a clear and structured manner, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (likely low, but involves subscription monitoring), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, data structure), potential errors, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters, making it complete in this regard. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

  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 specific action ('List all') and resource ('currently monitored paths and their subscriber counts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe which perform different operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 context by specifying 'currently monitored paths,' suggesting this tool is for viewing existing subscriptions rather than modifying them. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity about its specific application scenarios.

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