Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• everything_healthC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the name of the tool in sentence form ('Check Everything status') and provides no information about side effects, return values, or operational implications. This is essentially a tautology.

  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 highly concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It is appropriately sized for a simple health-check tool with no parameters. However, it could have added a note about the output or purpose without becoming verbose.

  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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'status' means or what the tool returns. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's behavior or interpret its results. Contextual completeness is poor despite the tool's low complexity.

  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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. According to the guidelines, 0 params warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics absent any parameters.

  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 'Check Everything status' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a health/status check. It distinguishes from sibling tools like everything_search and everything_count by focusing on status rather than data retrieval. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what 'status' encompasses.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for issuing a health check. It simply states an action without situating it relative to sibling tools.

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

• everything_countC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Count matching files.' It does not mention return format, path filter behavior, or whether the operation is safely read-only beyond what is implied by the word 'count.' The description fails to add meaningful behavioral context beyond the obvious.

  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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the core purpose without waste.

  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?

  For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly clarify that the result is a numeric count, nor does it explain the role of the optional path filter. The absence of output schema increases the burden on the description, but given the simplicity, the gap is not severe.

  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?

  The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (path with 'Path filter' and query with 'Search query'). The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so it remains at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Count' with resource 'matching files,' clearly indicating the tool counts files matching a query. This distinguishes it from sibling everything_search, which likely returns the files themselves, and everything_health, which presumably checks service status.

  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 everything_search or everything_health. There is no mention of alternative tools, exclusions, or contextual signals to help an agent decide when counting is preferable to searching.

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

• everything_searchB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It merely states 'Search files via Everything' without disclosing whether results are limited by path or maxResults, whether it's read-only (though implied), or what output format is. Lacks behavioral context beyond the verb.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded, no fluff. Appropriate for a simple search tool.

  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?

  Description is too sparse for context. No output schema, no annotations; it doesn't explain what the tool returns (file paths? matches?), nor the effect of path/maxResults. Given the tool's complexity relative to information provided, it's incomplete.

  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 all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds no param semantics; however baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('files via Everything'), clearly identifying its function. Sibling tools (everything_count, everything_health) serve different purposes, so this tool is distinct.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus everything_count or everything_health. It doesn't mention scenarios where counting or health checks would be more appropriate.

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