Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• remarkable_executeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 does so thoroughly: e.g., 'Trash is hidden unless includeTrash is true', 'exportPage ... Does not render typed text', 'writeMermaid ... pie/gantt/etc. error', and 'Repeated calls stack as new paragraphs' for writeText. It also notes refresh restarts xochitl, a side effect. This is rich, honest transparency.

  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 long, but it is well-structured like a TypeScript declaration with one-line comments per method. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the method list is logically grouped. Every line adds necessary information for a complex execution environment; the length is justified and not redundant.

  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 high complexity (arbitrary code execution over a rich API) and the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all available operations, their parameters, return types (as Promise<unknown>), notable behaviors, and limitations. The example anchors the usage, making the context fully self-contained.

  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?

  While the input schema only describes the 'code' parameter minimally, the description adds immense semantic value by defining the entire rme API that the code can call, including parameter notes (e.g., 'folder: "/" for root', 'style: title (big), heading...'). It also provides a full example, effectively turning the description into a mini-API reference that exceeds the schema's brief 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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Run JavaScript against the reMarkable API'. It then enumerates a comprehensive set of methods (list, browse, search, etc.) each with a brief semantic, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from any sibling concept, though no siblings exist.

  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?

  It provides explicit instructions on how to invoke the tool: 'Write an async arrow function. No TypeScript syntax.' and includes a concrete example. While it doesn't compare to alternative tools (none exist), it clearly outlines the expected format and gives a starting point for the code, which is sufficient guidance for use.

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