Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• append_text_file_contentsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the existence constraint but does not disclose side effects (mutation) or concurrency behavior despite file_hash being required. Some transparency, but gaps remain.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and key constraint.

  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 modifies files and has a concurrency mechanism, the description omits details about return values, error conditions (e.g., hash mismatch, file not found), and side effects. Not complete for the complexity.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the file_hash parameter's role is mentioned in the schema but not elaborated in the description.

  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 action ('append') and the resource ('text file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_text_file' and 'insert_text_file_contents'.

  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 only states 'The file must exist' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_text_file' or 'insert_text_file_contents'. No explicit when-to-use or 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.

• delete_text_file_contentsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions concurrency control via file_hash and that file must exist, but fails to describe error behavior (e.g., if file not found or hash mismatch), side effects, or reversibility. Partial transparency.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Optimal length for quick comprehension.

  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?

  As a destructive tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and post-deletion state. Given the existence of siblings, it does not fully cover the tool's usage context.

  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 100%, so parameter descriptions already clarify each field. The description repeats some schema info (file must exist, absolute paths) and adds provenance for file_hash. This adds slight value but not enough to raise above baseline 3.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'text file', specifying 'content ranges' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like append, create, insert, and patch. The description adds necessary preconditions (file existence, absolute paths, file_hash).

  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?

  Provides prerequisites (file must exist, paths absolute, file_hash from get_text_file_contents) that help with usage context, but does not explicitly compare with siblings or specify when to use vs. alternatives. Lacks 'when not to use' guidance.

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

• create_text_fileA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses the creation action and file existence precondition, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if file exists), encoding usage, or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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?

  One short sentence plus a condition. No unnecessary words. The essential information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

  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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers core purpose and a key precondition but omits details like error handling, encoding behavior, and any side effects (e.g., directory creation). It is adequate but could be more helpful.

  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 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond schema. It mentions 'given content' for contents (schema already says 'Content to write') and restates 'File path must be absolute' (already in schema). Encoding is not mentioned in description.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'Create a new text file with given content', which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds the precondition that the file must not already exist, distinguishing it from siblings like append or patch.

  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 explicitly says 'The file must not exist already', guiding when to use (for new files) and implying when not to use (file already exists). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings.

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

• get_text_file_contentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that returned contents include hashes for concurrency control and line numbers, and explains the purpose of hashes (conflict detection). This adds value beyond a simple 'read' operation.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant words, but could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral details from parameter reminders.

  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 no output schema, the description informs about return values (contents, hashes, line numbers). It covers the main use case and constraints (absolute paths). Sibling tools are all write operations, so contextual completeness is adequate.

  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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal new info about parameters, merely reinforcing that file paths must be absolute. It does not elaborate on encoding or range semantics 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 clearly states the tool reads text file contents from multiple files and line ranges. It specifies the resource (text files) and action (read), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that write or modify files.

  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 indicates when to use the tool (reading file contents) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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

• insert_text_file_contentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses hash-based concurrency control and the prerequisite of file_hash. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., out-of-range line, hash mismatch) and the fact that the file is modified in place.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important prerequisite. No wasted words.

  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 description covers the main action and prerequisite, but lacks information on return value (no output schema) and error cases. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but incomplete.

  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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the concurrency control purpose of file_hash and the prerequisite relationship with get_text_file_contents. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

  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 inserts content before or after a specific line in a text file, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like append_text_file_contents and patch_text_file_contents by specifying line-based insertion.

  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 by requiring the file_hash from get_text_file_contents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• patch_text_file_contentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions concurrency control via hashes but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., hash mismatch, partial patches) or permissions required. Could be more transparent about failure modes.

  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, dense paragraph with no superfluous words. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately gives prerequisite and alternative usage, making it efficient for agent parsing.

  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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and complex nested patches, the description provides necessary context: prerequisite hash retrieval and alternative tools for simpler edits. Missing details on return value and errors, but sufficient for typical use cases.

  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 description coverage is 100%; each parameter has a description. The tool description adds context about hash usage and the need to fetch them from get_text_file_contents. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema beyond the prerequisite flow.

  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 applies patches to text files with hash-based concurrency control. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning that append and insert tools do not require range hashes and start/end parameters.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs the agent to use get_text_file_contents first to obtain file_hash and range_hash. Also provides alternatives (append, insert) for simpler operations, clearly delimiting when to use this tool and when not to.

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