Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_filesB
  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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'list available markdown files' and does not mention sorting, recursion, inclusion of hidden files, or whether only paths are returned. This is minimal coverage of behavioral traits.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. For a simple list operation, this is appropriately concise and every word earns its place.

  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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description need not explain return values or parameter formats. However, it omits usage context relative to sibling tools, such as clarifying that this lists filenames while search_markdown searches content, which slightly reduces 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?

  The input schema fully covers both parameters with clear descriptions, including syntax examples for pattern, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema carries the load, earning the baseline score of 3.

  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 ('List') and resource ('available markdown files'), which distinguishes it from siblings that read or search file contents. However, 'available' is slightly vague and does not explicitly specify the scope (e.g., current folder/workspace).

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_markdown or read_file, and no prerequisites are mentioned. It is a bare statement without context for selection.

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

• search_markdownA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one key behavioral trait: results are snippets, not full files. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, discuss performance implications (e.g., strategy default), or mention any potential side effects or limitations.

  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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the essential purpose and key limitation. It wastes no words and front-loads the primary action.

  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 tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It clearly communicates the core distinction from siblings. Minor gaps remain around when to prefer this over alternatives and metadata about the search results, but these are adequately handled by the schema and tool name.

  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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (query, strategy, max_results) with descriptive text. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond reinforcing the snippet output, which relates to max_results but doesn't explain parameter syntax or interpretation.

  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 'search' and resource 'markdown content', and explicitly notes it returns snippets rather than full files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, which reads full files, and list_files, which lists files.

  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 on what the tool does, and the parenthetical '(not full files)' implicitly guides users away from using it when they need complete file contents. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• read_fileA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation and adds useful behavior details (full-file vs. section-based reads). It does not mention error handling or exact return format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that gap.

  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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and object and provides all essential details without redundancy. Every clause adds meaning, making it an ideal length for quick comprehension.

  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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, where paths come from, and the optional section behavior, so no critical selection information is missing.

  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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema by indicating the path comes from list_files/search_markdown and that section is optional. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('a markdown file by its relative path'), and it explicitly references sibling tools (list_files / search_markdown) to clarify how paths are obtained. This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately clear and well-differentiated from siblings.

  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 on how to obtain paths ('as shown by list_files / search_markdown') and mentions the optional section-scoping behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is implied strongly enough for an agent to make the right choice.

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

• rescan_folderA
  4.6/5.0
  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 the tool's effect (rescanning for new/modified/deleted files), the automatic alternative (file watcher), and what it returns (summary). It does not describe potential side effects on an internal index, but the core behavior is clear.

  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 moderately verbose but well-structured with a clear opening statement, bulleted usage cases, and a returns section. It could be tightened, but every sentence contributes value and the layout aids comprehension.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage timing, behavioral context, and return value. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on rescanning rather than reading, listing, or searching. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still satisfies that need.

  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 zero parameters, so per baseline guidance a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist, and the schema already confirms this.

  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: 'Manually rescan the folder for new, modified, or deleted markdown files.' The verb 'rescan' and resource 'folder' are specific, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like read_file, list_files, and search_markdown.

  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 'Use this tool if' section lists concrete scenarios (new files not showing, force refresh, file watcher unavailable). It also explains that the file watcher normally handles this automatically, giving clear guidance on when manual control is appropriate.

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