Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_sessionB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the process (read, transform, write) but omits important behavioral traits like whether the source is modified, required permissions, or potential side effects. The uniqueness claim is helpful but insufficient.

  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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.

  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 and 5 parameters (3 required), the description fails to explain return values or the role of optional parameters (projectPath, searchPaths). The conversion process is described but completeness for decision-making is lacking.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

  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 converts a session between harnesses, using verbs 'reads', 'transforms', and 'writes'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that OpenCode conversion is uniquely supported, making the purpose highly specific.

  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 hints at usage for OpenCode conversion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like convert_by_path or preview_conversion. No 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.

• convert_by_pathA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions auto-detection of format, which is helpful, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether the conversion creates a new file, overwrites, or returns output) or any permissions needed. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value: it defines the tool, states auto-detection, and gives usage context. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and when-to-use but lacks information about the result of conversion (output format, file creation, return value). It is moderately complete for a simple tool but could include more detail about what happens after conversion.

  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 parameters are already documented. The description adds contextual value (auto-detection logic) but does not elaborate on parameter specifics like allowed values for 'to' or path constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal extra meaning.

  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 converts a session file by its direct file path and lists the auto-detected formats. It distinguishes from sibling 'convert_session' by emphasizing the file path method, providing a specific verb-resource-scope combination.

  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 says 'Useful when you know the exact file location', which implies when to use, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or compare to siblings like convert_session. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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

• list_sessionsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must bear full burden. It states the tool lists sessions and shows fields, but does not explicitly declare read-only nature, potential rate limits, or pagination. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not explicit 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?

  Three concise sentences: action, output fields, usage. Front-loaded and no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with 3 parameters all documented in schema, the description covers output fields and usage. It does not mention pagination or largest possible result set, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

  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 describes all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referencing harness and fields shown. Baseline of 3 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's action ('List convertible sessions'), specifies the output fields, and distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools by indicating its role in finding session IDs.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this to find the session ID to convert', which provides clear usage context. While it doesn't detail when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tools are implicitly different (conversion vs. listing).

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

• preview_conversionA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'without actually writing anything' clarifying it's read-only, and describes output content. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a preview tool, the description is adequate.

  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 the core action, and the second sentence elaborates on output. No unnecessary words.

  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 lack of an output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return type. It explains the parameters sufficiently with schema coverage. Could mention expected structure or error states, but overall complete for a preview tool.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the preview shows, but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It adds marginal value.

  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 'preview' and the resource 'session conversion', and lists what it shows (message breakdown, tool call stats, compatibility notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'convert_session' which actually perform the conversion.

  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 implies usage by saying 'without actually writing anything', suggesting it's for safe preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'convert_session' or 'convert_by_path', though the context is clear.

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