Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tracy_jank_fpsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description describes read-like actions (polling, scraping) but annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, creating a potential contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, state changes) is provided beyond the actions.

  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 reasonably structured with a brief overview, bulleted actions, and listed args. It could be slightly more concise but avoids unnecessary verbosity.

  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 moderate complexity, the description sufficiently explains tool usage but lacks guidance on when to choose each action or how output relates to usage. The presence of an output schema (unseen) partially compensates.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanation for all parameters: action (with enumerated values), side, duration_seconds, and log_lines, giving context not present in 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 clearly states the tool provides 'Frame-level health, complementing the per-function view' and lists two specific actions (sample_fps and read_jank_logs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on captures, function costs, and status.

  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 context (frame-level health vs. per-function view) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• tracy_list_capturesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and the context of diffing. It does not contradict annotations, and the provided details go beyond the structured annotations alone.

  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, concise sentence that conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

  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 zero parameters, an existing output schema (though not detailed), and clear annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. It specifies the returned fields and the diffing context, which is sufficient for this simple tool. No major gaps are present.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by listing the fields that will be returned (id, label, side, totals, timestamp), which is useful context even though it is not parameter-related. For zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'stored captures', and explicitly names the fields (id, label, side, totals, timestamp). It also indicates the purpose ('for diffing'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool tracy_diff_captures that likely performs the actual diff operation.

  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 diffing but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. Since there are no parameters, the tool is straightforward, but it could mention that it lists all available captures without filtering. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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

• tracy_diff_capturesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of negative delta ('faster') and listing the return categories. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and provides useful behavioral details.

  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 and well-structured: a purpose line, a line about delta meaning, a list of return categories, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  The description covers purpose, parameters, and return categories adequately. However, it could be improved by mentioning error handling or invalid capture IDs, though the output schema likely covers return types.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., base_id/new_id are capture IDs, metric options, top_n max rows). This fully compensates for the missing 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 diffs two captures by function to validate an optimization, and lists the output categories (improved/regressed/added/removed). It is distinct from siblings like tracy_list_captures and tracy_get_function_costs, which serve different purposes.

  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 validating optimizations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for a single capture, use tracy_get_function_costs). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• tracy_get_function_costsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds 'Pure server-side slice (no game call)' and explains it queries a stored capture. No contradictions, but behavior beyond annotations is minor.

  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 (four sentences) with a clear structure: main purpose, filtering behavior, then parameter list. No unnecessary words.

  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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, safety (server-side), and parameter semantics completely for a query tool with annotations.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: capture_id is required, names for exact match, name_contains for case-insensitive substring, limit default 50. Adds significant meaning beyond schema types.

  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 queries per-function self/total/calls from a stored capture. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tracy_diff_captures and tracy_jank_fps by focusing on a single capture analysis.

  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 explains how to filter results (exact names, substring, or default top limit) and notes it's a pure server-side operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

• tracy_native_captureA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it drives CLIs, traces across main_thread and MC_SERVER threads, and requires no whitelist. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful context, though it does not specify blocking behavior.

  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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, usage condition, and parameter details. It is concise enough while including necessary guidance, but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

  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 tool's complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers prerequisites, usage flow, parameter meaning, and how the output (capture_id) integrates with sibling tools. It adequately informs the agent for correct invocation.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: seconds range and default, name_contains filter with example, top_n default, address/port default, and label for diffing. This adds significant semantic value beyond 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 clearly states the tool captures function timings from a native Tracy server on TCP 8086. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tracy_get_function_costs and tracy_status by specifying the capture action and prerequisite conditions.

  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?

  Explicit usage guidance is provided: use after tracy_status reports reachable and bin_present, and drive gameplay during the capture window. It also explains the output (capture_id) integrates with other tools, offering clear when-to-use context.

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

• tracy_statusA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. Description adds details about what is probed (reachable, bin_present, mcdk) and explains the underlying mechanism (native Tracy server, TCP 8086, bundled CLIs), going beyond annotations.

  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?

  Well-structured: opening sentence, 'RUN THIS FIRST', explanation of reports, then Args. Every sentence adds value, no waste.

  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 3 parameters and existence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameters. Output schema fields are mentioned, making it complete.

  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%, but the description explains parameters in the 'Args' section: address/port defaults, project_dir optional for MCDK port. This adds meaning beyond the schema's default values.

  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 'Probe whether native-Tracy profiling is usable on the running game.' It specifies the verb (probe), resource (native-Tracy profiling), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tracy_native_capture.

  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 says 'RUN THIS FIRST' and explains that it does NOT use the Python binding or MCDK, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool before other Tracy tools.

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