Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cimd_clear_cacheA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the action (force re-fetch), scope (all cached metadata), and admin requirement, but does not describe side effects like performance impact or cache invalidation consequences.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The Returns line is slightly redundant given the output schema, but it does not detract from the overall conciseness.

  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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, scope, and access level. It does not explain when to use it or relationships to siblings, but the absence of parameters and presence of output schema reduce the burden.

  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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable given zero parameters; baseline 4 is appropriate.

  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+resource ('Force re-fetch all cached CIMD metadata') and identifies it as an admin tool. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cimd_cache_info, which likely inspects cache state.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes it is an admin tool, but does not contrast with cimd_cache_info or state prerequisites for invocation.

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

• say_helloA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Returns: A friendly greeting,' which clearly indicates a side-effect-free, pure operation. No hidden state changes or side effects are implied, so the coverage is adequate for a tool of this simplicity.

  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 extremely concise, containing only one line of prose plus a simple Args and Returns block. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no filler or redundancy.

  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 trivial complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the function, the parameter semantics, and the return value, leaving no meaningful 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?

  The input schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default, with no semantic description. The description adds essential meaning: 'name: The name to greet (defaults to 'world').' This fully clarifies the parameter's purpose, exceeding the schema's minimal 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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Say hello to someone.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools (cimd_resolve, cimd_cache_info, cimd_clear_cache), which all deal with caching and resolution.

  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 when to use the tool (whenever a greeting is needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Since the siblings are unrelated, there is no risk of confusion, but the tool does not go beyond stating its basic function.

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

• cimd_cache_infoA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Inspect' signals a read-only operation, and the return description of 'cache contents with remaining TTL seconds per client_id' adds useful behavioral detail. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free or permission requirements, but the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.

  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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear statement of return values. No redundant or filler content.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters and a provided output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return content, and admin context. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

  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 per the baseline this warrants a 4. The description adds context about the output being per client_id, which is useful even though there are no parameters to explain.

  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 'Inspect' and the specific resource 'CIMD metadata cache', and labels it as an admin/management tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cimd_clear_cache and cimd_resolve by implying a read-only inspection role.

  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 by identifying the tool as an admin/management tool for inspecting cache contents. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the admin/management label plus the contrast with cimd_clear_cache and cimd_resolve reasonably implies appropriate usage.

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

• cimd_resolveA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and thoroughly discloses behavior: validating HTTPS, fetching the metadata document, schema checks, caching with TTL, SSRF protections, and returning CIMD error semantics. This goes well beyond a simple 'resolve' summary.

  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 in the first sentence and uses clear Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about validation, caching, or error behavior, with no filler.

  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?

  For a one-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers input semantics, the resolution process, side effects (cache TTL), security (SSRF), and error output. It provides a complete mental model without needing the output schema.

  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 coverage is 0% and the schema only names 'client_id' with a title. The description's Args section explains the meaning ('The client_id URL pointing to the CIMD document') and gives a concrete example URL, fully compensating for 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve an OAuth client_id URL to its CIMD metadata document.' It distinguishes cimd_resolve from sibling tools like cimd_cache_info and cimd_clear_cache by focusing on resolution and validation, not cache inspection or clearing.

  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 gives clear context by stating it 'Implements the server-side CIMD flow' and lists prerequisites (HTTPS URL, schema validation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the server-side framing and validation steps make the intended use unambiguous.

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