Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_identityB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavior is simple, so score is adequate but not enhanced.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. While it lacks detail, there is no unnecessary fluff.

  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 the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it fails to document the parameter or return value, leaving gaps for an agent.

  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 sole parameter 'anima_id' is not described in the description text. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameter's purpose, but it only implies it identifies the Anima. No format or examples are provided.

  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 'Get' and the resource 'Anima's identity profile', listing specific data components (personality type, communication style, self-reflection data). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like query or search_knowledge.

  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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_memories or query. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

• ingest_eventA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It reveals the tool is a write operation for memory storage, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate events.

  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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose, the second extends usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  While the description covers purpose and basic usage, it lacks details about return values or behavioral guarantees. For a logging tool with 6 parameters, some additional context (e.g., what the response looks like) would improve completeness.

  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?

  Description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Schema coverage is high (83%), so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify any parameters further.

  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 'Record' and the resource 'interaction event', explaining its purpose for future memory synthesis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query' or 'search' which are read-oriented.

  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: 'Use this to capture messages, tool calls, or other signals' for memory synthesis. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context is sufficient given sibling tools are all reads.

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

• search_knowledgeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses the semantic search behavior and return type but omits details on read-only nature, pagination, error handling, 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 concise with three sentences: purpose, return type, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant text.

  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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose and return type but lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., anima_id, limits) and return format, leaving gaps.

  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 description adds context about return types (facts, concepts, etc.) which complements the 'knowledge_type' parameter, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema's 80% coverage. The added value is moderate.

  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 performs 'semantic search across an Anima's knowledge base' and returns 'canonicalized truths' ranked by similarity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_memories' by specifying structured knowledge retrieval and listing knowledge types.

  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 advises 'Use this for structured knowledge retrieval,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

• search_memoriesA
  3.9/5.0
  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 semantic search and ranking by similarity, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, required auth, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Efficient and to the point.

  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?

  Lacks output schema or description of return format. The tool is simple, but missing details about response structure (e.g., returns memory IDs and similarity scores) reduces completeness for an agent.

  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 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context (semantic search, ranking) but does not elaborate on anima_id or parameter specifics beyond schema. Marginal added value over 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 it performs semantic search across memories and returns ranked results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_knowledge (for knowledge) and get_identity, 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?

  Explicitly says 'Use this when you want to find specific past experiences or interactions,' providing clear usage context. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list and resource type imply 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.

• queryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that it returns results ranked by semantic similarity. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it adequately conveys read-only behavior through the term 'search' but lacks details on limitations or edge cases.

  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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and output behavior immediately.

  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?

  No output schema, but description mentions 'returns relevant results ranked by semantic similarity,' which gives a general idea. Could be more specific about return format, but sufficient for a search tool with many parameters.

  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 each parameter is already described. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.

  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 it searches across memories, knowledge, and identity, returning results ranked by semantic similarity. Distinguishes from siblings like search_knowledge and search_memories by being a general cross-layer query.

  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 says 'Use this for general questions about what the Anima knows or remembers,' providing clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools imply specialization.

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