Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_sourcesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose traits like read-only nature, whether it lists all documents without filters, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, this is minimal disclosure.

  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 sentence of 10 words, extremely concise with no wasted text. For a no-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized and 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 tool is low complexity with no parameters and an output schema exists (though not detailed here). The description is adequate but could be more complete by mentioning that it lists all documents (no filtering) or clarifying return format. Given the output schema, the description is minimally sufficient.

  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?

  There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add param info. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description is clear about what the tool does, which is sufficient.

  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 that the tool lists 'documents in the knowledge base' and 'the active search mode', specifying the verb (list) and resources. However, 'active search mode' is vague and not defined further, and it does not distinguish from siblings like search_documents which also deals with documents.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_documents (for searching) or get_document (for a specific document). The agent is left to infer that this tool should be used to get an overview, but exclusions or context are missing.

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

• get_documentA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states basic behavior (returns full text). Lacks details on error handling, permissions, side effects, or what happens if source does not exist.

  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 with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

  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 output schema exists, description need not detail return structure. However, it misses error conditions and does not address potential limitations (e.g., what if multiple documents share a source name).

  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 0% for parameter 'source', but description adds meaning by linking it to list_sources (source names). Does not specify format, case sensitivity, or validation rules.

  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 'Return', the resource 'full text of one document', and the identifier 'by its source name'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_sources (lists names) and search_documents (search, not 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?

  Explicitly instructs to use list_sources first to get valid names, and suggests actions on the result (read or summarise). Provides clear workflow context but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

• add_noteA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that notes are indexed immediately and returns a confirmation with source name. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, idempotency, or access restrictions.

  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 concise and well-structured with purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

  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?

  For a simple create tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, parameter meanings, and return value. It lacks detail on uniqueness or overwrite behavior, but those are not essential.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'title' is also used for naming the file and that 'content' accepts plain text or Markdown. 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 the verb 'save' and 'index' and the resource 'note' and 'knowledge base'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all retrieval-oriented (get_document, list_sources, search_documents).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the action of creating a note is self-evident given the sibling tools, so usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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

• search_documentsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the return format (passages with source and score) and the behavior of each mode. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which are not critical for a search tool but would add completeness.

  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 very concise: a single sentence for purpose, a bullet-like list for parameters, and a sentence for the return format. Every sentence provides essential information. It is front-loaded with the key action and then details.

  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 the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains all parameters, the default behavior for mode and limit, and what the response contains (passages with source and score). The output schema existence means the description does not need to detail the return structure beyond that.

  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?

  The schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions in the JSON schema), so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter in detail: query (natural language or keywords), limit (1-50, default 5), and mode (three options with behavior descriptions). This adds significant meaning beyond the basic types and defaults in 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 this tool searches the knowledge base for passages relevant to a query, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (add_note, get_document, list_sources) by being a search tool that returns multiple passages, rather than adding a note, getting a single document, or listing sources.

  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 finding relevant passages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide between search_documents and its siblings.

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