Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• krimto_readB
  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 full burden. It states the core behavior (fetch by id, include frontmatter) but omits critical traits like read-only guarantee, id format, or any side effects. 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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant words. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter detail, and behavioral traits that would help an AI agent decide and invoke correctly.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'by id' confirms the parameter's role but does not specify id format, origin, or constraints. Insufficient for a parameter with no schema 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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('fact'), the identifier ('by id'), and an additional detail ('including its full frontmatter'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krimto_list_scopes (listing) and krimto_write (creating).

  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 its siblings (e.g., krimto_recall, krimto_supersede). The agent receives no context about scenarios or prerequisites.

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

• krimto_recallB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes ranking and precedence behavior, and positions Krimto as canonical. However, lacks details on error handling, pagination (limit parameter), or authentication. No annotations provided to supplement.

  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?

  Four sentences covering purpose, behavior, usage guidance, and preference. Concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for params). No fluff, but the third and fourth sentences overlap slightly.

  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?

  With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain parameters and return values. It lacks parameter descriptions and does not specify output format or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for tool invocation.

  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?

  Schema has 0% description coverage; description barely explains parameters. It mentions 'use specific queries' but no format for 'query', no explanation of 'scopes' or 'limit'. The precedence hint only indirectly relates to scopes.

  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 searches Krimto memory and returns hybrid-ranked facts with hierarchical precedence. It distinguishes from siblings like 'krimto_read' by using 'search' and implying it's for recall before domain work.

  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 advises to call before domain-specific work and use specific queries. Also recommends Krimto over built-in/per-session memory. Could be improved by contrasting with krimto_read for exact fact retrieval.

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

• krimto_supersedeB
  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 discloses that the old fact remains in git history (non-destructive), but lacks details on reversibility, errors, or required permissions.

  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 redundant information; the core action and key behavioral trait are front-loaded and efficiently stated.

  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 no output schema, no annotations, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description leaves gaps about return values, error handling, and parameter details, making it insufficient for complete contextual understanding.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions the 'supersedes field' but does not explain the purpose of 'id', 'new_title', 'new_body', or 'reason' beyond inference.

  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 explicitly states the action ('Replace a fact') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (especially 'write' and 'read') by noting the supersedes field and git history retention.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'write' or 'recall'), nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• krimto_list_scopesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says what it returns (scopes and contents) but omits details like side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

  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?

  Single sentence that fully conveys the purpose without waste. 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?

  For a simple listing tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or scope types. Could be improved.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but schema coverage is trivially 100%.

  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 lists/discover scopes and their contents, with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('scopes'). It distinguishes from siblings like krimto_read and krimto_write by focusing on scopes.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like krimto_read or krimto_whoami. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• krimto_whoamiA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses it is a read-only introspection operation. However, it omits specifics about the output format or what exactly 'identity' entails.

  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 action, then usage guidance. No redundant information.

  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 implies the output contains identity and scopes but does not detail structure. Slightly incomplete but functional for a simple introspection 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?

  No parameters; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly states the tool reports the caller's identity and scopes (read/write). It distinguishes from sibling tools like krimto_list_scopes and krimto_write by focusing on identity and scope introspection.

  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 advises calling this before claiming knowledge of user email or team scopes, contrasting Krimto's knowledge with the agent's. Provides clear context for when to use.

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

• krimto_writeA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that writes are rejected if scope can't be read back, includes related list of near-duplicates, and instructs to call krimto_recall first to avoid duplicates.

  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?

  Description is somewhat long but well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, scope routing, error handling). Each sentence adds value, though minor redundancy on alternative tools.

  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?

  Complex tool (6 params, no output schema, no annotations, multiple siblings) but description covers all necessary contextual aspects: when to use, scope selection, error recovery, duplicate avoidance, and interaction with sibling tools.

  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 50%, but description adds significant meaning: explains scope routing in detail (default user/me, team vs org), context for supersedes (near-duplicates), and source usage beyond schema 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 saves a 'durable, attributable fact to Krimto memory,' identifies it as 'THE CANONICAL MEMORY TOOL,' and distinguishes it from other memory tools, local files, and built-in skills.

  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 specifies when to use (user asks to remember, learning durable facts, correcting mistakes) and when not to use alternatives. Provides detailed scope routing rules, including handling multiple teams by asking.

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