Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_link_documentationC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch and analyze' and 'extracting all available components', but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, output format, or whether it modifies data. For a tool that interacts with external websites and performs analysis, this is a significant gap in 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('fetch and analyze documentation') and specifies key outputs ('components, APIs, and usage examples'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured 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?

  Given the tool's complexity (fetching and analyzing external web documentation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like network dependencies, analysis methods, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use. A more comprehensive description is needed to compensate for missing structured data.

  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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, depth, selector) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid URLs or practical use cases for depth/selector. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'fetch and analyze' and the resource 'documentation from a website link', with specific components mentioned ('components, APIs, and usage examples'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_cursor_memories' and 'save_cursor_memory' by focusing on external web content rather than cursor memories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar tools (e.g., 'fetch_webpage'), so it's not a perfect 5.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., internet access), exclusions (e.g., non-documentation sites), or compare to other tools for similar tasks. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• get_cursor_memoriesB
  3.2/5.0
  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 retrieves memories but offers no details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no filters are applied. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key filtering options. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Cursor memory' entails, the return format, or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to fully understand its operation and limitations.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (category, limit, tag) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by category or tag, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or interaction effects between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

  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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('saved Cursor memories'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from 'save_cursor_memory' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fetch_link_documentation', which might also involve retrieval but of different resources.

  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 for filtering memories by category or tag, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_link_documentation'. It mentions filtering options but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

• save_cursor_memoryA
  4.4/5.0
  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. It discloses that this is a write operation ('Save'), implies persistence to files, and specifies formatting requirements (markdown, structured content). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or file storage behavior, leaving some gaps.

  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 critical usage instructions. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential guidance without redundancy, making it efficient and well-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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It addresses key aspects like content formatting and pre-call summarization. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects or response expectations, slightly reducing 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that content should be 'well-formatted and summarized' in markdown, which aligns with schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Save') and resource ('conversation summary or important information to Cursor memory files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'fetch_link_documentation' (retrieving) and 'get_cursor_memories' (reading). It specifies the type of content being saved, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

  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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'The model should first summarize the conversation or information into a well-formatted document before calling this tool.' It also implies when to use it (for saving summarized content) versus alternatives like 'get_cursor_memories' for retrieval, offering clear guidance.

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