Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_projectsB
  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 tool returns a list of projects, which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic return statement.

  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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second describes the return value. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by combining both pieces of information into a single flowing sentence.

  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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a relatively simple list operation, the description provides adequate basic information. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context about what 'list all' means in practice (e.g., completeness guarantees, ordering, or limitations).

  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 already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for tools with no 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Gradle projects in the workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_tasks', which could cause confusion about when to use each tool.

  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_project_tasks' or 'get_gradle_config'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• run_taskA
  3.6/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool executes tasks and returns a TaskResult with success status and error messages, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., file system changes), performance implications, or error handling beyond the return structure.

  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 for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value (e.g., examples for parameters). It could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples more tightly, but overall it's efficient.

  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 complexity (executing tasks with potential side effects), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return values. However, it lacks context on error scenarios or integration with sibling tools, leaving minor 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 fully. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'task' explains it can be a single task, space-separated tasks, or a list with examples, and 'args' describes optional Gradle arguments with examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 as 'Run one or more Gradle tasks' with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Gradle tasks'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'clean' or 'list_project_tasks' by focusing on execution rather than cleanup or listing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'clean' or 'list_project_tasks' for task discovery.

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

• cleanA
  3.7/5.0
  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 states the tool performs a 'clean' operation (implying mutation/deletion of artifacts) and mentions the return type 'TaskResult', which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't detail side effects (e.g., what artifacts are deleted, whether it's reversible), permissions, or error handling beyond a generic mention, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 moderate complexity (mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter usage, and return type adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like side effects or error specifics.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter 'project', including examples (':app') and special cases (None, empty string, ':' for root), which adds significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain default behavior or constraints beyond what's shown, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 ('clean build artifacts') and resource ('for a Gradle project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_task' which might also perform build operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 (cleaning build artifacts in Gradle projects) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'run_task' with a clean target, or mention prerequisites like needing a Gradle project setup. It's adequate but lacks sibling differentiation and exclusion criteria.

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

• daemon_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool returns status information (a read operation) and hints at monitoring use, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling beyond mentioning an optional error in returns. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and return details in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficiently structured.

  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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It provides purpose, usage, and a high-level overview of returns, but could slightly enhance behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotations.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

  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 verb ('Get status') and resource ('Gradle daemon(s)'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'stop_daemon' by focusing on monitoring rather than control. It explicitly mentions what the tool does without being tautological.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for monitoring daemon health and resource usage'), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like 'run_task' or 'clean'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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

• get_gradle_configA
  4.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read-only operation that returns configuration data, which is appropriate, but lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., whether it's resource-intensive). It adds some context by mentioning the source files and use cases, but could be more comprehensive for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by details on returns and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies sources and content, the third provides context, and the fourth outlines the output structure. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

  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 complexity (read-only configuration retrieval), no annotations, 0 parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, sources, use cases, and output structure. However, it could improve by addressing potential limitations or dependencies, such as requiring Gradle to be installed or file access permissions.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score above 3. It effectively compensates by explaining what the tool retrieves, which aligns with the lack of inputs.

  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 ('Get current Gradle configuration') and resource ('memory settings, gradle.properties, gradle-wrapper.properties'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'run_task' that perform different operations. It precisely identifies what configuration elements are retrieved, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for diagnosing memory issues or understanding project configuration'), which helps differentiate it from siblings focused on execution or listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as using 'daemon_status' for daemon-specific checks instead.

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

• list_project_tasksA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses key behavioral traits: the nested grouped structure of the output, the compactness benefit over a flat list, and the effect of 'include_descriptions' on the response format. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or performance implications (e.g., whether it's a heavy 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, then a structured breakdown of parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the use of sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability.

  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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and output behavior. The output schema exists, so the description correctly focuses on explaining the structure and logic rather than repeating schema details, providing all necessary context for an agent.

  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 fully compensate. It adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of each parameter, provides examples (e.g., ':app' for 'project', 'Build' for 'group'), clarifies default behaviors (e.g., root project handling), and describes the impact of 'include_descriptions' on the output. This fully documents all three parameters.

  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 tasks'), resource ('in a Gradle project'), and scope ('available'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists projects) and 'run_task' (which executes tasks). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get a compact, grouped list of tasks) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'run_task' or explain if this is for discovery vs. execution. The guidance is implied through the description of the output structure.

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

• stop_daemonA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly states this is a destructive operation ('Stops all running Gradle daemons'), mentions the purpose (freeing memory, resolving issues), and describes the return format (TaskResult with success/error). However, it doesn't specify potential side effects like interrupting ongoing builds or permission requirements.

  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 perfectly structured with zero waste: first sentence states the core action, second explains purpose and use cases, third describes return format. Every sentence earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The output schema handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further on response structure.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even without parameter information in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's behavior and output.

  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 ('Stop all Gradle daemons') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'daemon_status' (which checks status) and 'run_task' (which executes tasks). It explicitly identifies the resource being acted upon (Gradle daemons) with a precise verb (stop).

  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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Useful for freeing up memory or when experiencing daemon-related issues') and distinguishes it from alternatives by focusing on stopping daemons rather than checking status (daemon_status) or performing other operations. It gives clear context for application.

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