Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_reviewsB
  3.4/5.0
  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. It merely states the action and an optional filter, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or any authorization requirements. For an agent, this is insufficient to anticipate behavior beyond the obvious.

  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 states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant verbiage, and the key qualifier (optional repository filter) is included. It is perfectly sized for the scope.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source for return semantics. It does not explain what a 'review' object looks like, whether the list is paginated, or if it returns only the current user's reviews. For a listing tool, this leaves the agent guessing about the response structure and dependencies.

  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% since repository_id has a clear description. The tool description's mention of 'optionally filtered by repository' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

  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 'List AI code reviews, optionally filtered by repository' uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('AI code reviews'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_review (which likely fetches a single review) and list_repos (which lists repositories).

  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 listing all or repository-filtered reviews, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_review. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the sibling context offers some implicit differentiation.

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

• generation_feedbackA
  3.5/5.0
  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 states 'Submit feedback,' indicating a write operation, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens after submission. The lack of side-effect or response context is a notable 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and outcome categories without waste. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, storage behavior, or any post-conditions, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

  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's parenthetical '(worked, partial, or failed)' merely restates the enum values already present in the schema and adds no additional parameter semantics.

  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 action ('Submit feedback'), the resource ('generated workflow'), and the specific outcome categories ('worked, partial, or failed'). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which relate to feedback submission.

  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 when to use the tool (when giving feedback on a generated workflow) but does not explicitly discuss prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no confusion, but the guidance is still only implicit.

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

• create_prA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. It does not mention what happens on failure or whether it alters the repository state beyond opening a PR.

  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 with no wasted words.

  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?

  For a one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description conveys the core purpose but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details (e.g., return value, prerequisites), leaving some gaps for the agent.

  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 covers the single parameter with a clear description ('Generation ID from deploy_repo'), and the tool description adds that the PR will contain the generated CI/CD workflow, providing extra semantic context 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'GitHub pull request' and specifies the content ('generated CI/CD workflow'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like deploy_repo and list_reviews.

  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 the tool is used after generation (referencing the generated workflow and the generation_id from deploy_repo), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• get_reviewA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output organization (severity-sorted comments) but does not disclose read-only nature, error responses, permissions, or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral context unaddressed.

  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 sentence, under 15 words, with the key action verb and output detail front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description states the core function and output characteristic. However, with no output schema or annotations, it lacks information on return structure, error cases, or authentication, making it only minimally 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?

  The schema already fully documents the single parameter review_id with a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline for high schema coverage 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed code review' and qualifies it with 'all inline comments organized by severity'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_reviews, which presumably lists reviews without detail.

  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 when a detailed review with comments is needed, contrasting with list_reviews by emphasizing 'detailed' and 'all inline comments'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, missing an explicit exclusion.

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

• list_reposA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and specifying the returned fields gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, does not mention authentication requirements, or describe potential pagination/limitations. It is adequate but not rich.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the core content. There is no wasted information; every word adds meaning.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the subject ('connected repositories') and the attributes shown. However, it could benefit from a note about the scope (e.g., all connected repositories vs. a subset) or a pointer to 'repo_details' for more granular info, but these are nice-to-have rather than essential.

  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 takes no parameters, and the schema is an empty object, meaning 100% coverage by definition. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.

  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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('connected repositories') along with the key fields returned ('analysis status, language, framework'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'repo_details' (single repo) and 'list_reviews' (reviews).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling (e.g., 'repo_details' for detailed info) would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the name and the phrase 'connected repositories.'

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

• repo_detailsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, and the listed content types indicate return data, but it does not explicitly state the operation is safe, error behavior, or any prerequisites. It adds some transparency beyond the schema 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and a list of deliverables. No filler words; every part 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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return content by listing four specific categories. It does not describe the exact response structure, but it is adequate for a simple get operation.

  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 already describes repo_id as 'Repository ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameter, so it relies entirely on 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'repository details,' listing concrete content types (analysis results, readiness score, optimizations, generation history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos (listing) and get_review (reviews).

  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 fetching detailed information about a single repository, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_repos or mention exclusions. The context is clear but no explicit guidance is provided.

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

• health_checkA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the purpose and does not describe the return format, error behavior, whether it's a read-only operation, or any other side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about what a connectivity check actually returns.

  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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a practical use case.

  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?

  For a simple zero-parameter health check, the description provides the core purpose and a use case. However, since there is no output schema, it should ideally mention what the response indicates (e.g., success/failure, latency) to be fully complete. The lack of any return or error semantics is a minor gap.

  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 takes zero parameters, and per scoring guidelines the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter details since there are none, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

  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 'check' and clearly identifies the resource ('connectivity to the CodeRocket API'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos, create_pr, and deploy_repo, which all deal with other operations.

  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 explicitly states a use case: 'useful for debugging setup issues,' which effectively communicates when to use the tool. It does not name alternatives, but no alternatives are needed for a health check.

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

• account_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the exact return format, which are minor gaps for a simple informational tool.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is immediately understandable.

  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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what the user will learn (subscription tier, usage, limits). It would be stronger with explicit notes on return structure or authentication, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

  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 the baseline is 4. The description adds value by naming the output fields (subscription tier, usage, limits), which is not required but helps set expectations. No parameter semantics are needed.

  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 'Get' with a clear resource 'account information' and lists concrete contents (subscription tier, usage, limits). It is distinct from sibling tools focused on repos, PRs, health, and deployment, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 when to use this tool (when needing account information) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. Since no sibling tool overlaps with account status, usage context is clear but not directly articulated.

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

• deploy_repoA
  4.2/5.0
  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 internal async flow ('analyze → poll → generate → poll') and the return format ('complete YAML + explanation'). This adds meaningful context about expected behavior and output.

  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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the internal flow and return value. 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?

  For a tool with only 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the async flow, and the return value. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites, but the given information is sufficient for basic understanding and usage.

  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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (repo_id and deploy_target). The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 'Analyze a repository and generate a CI/CD workflow', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_repos, create_pr, and repo_details by focusing on CI/CD workflow generation rather than listing, PR creation, or repository details.

  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 that this tool is used for generating CI/CD workflows and handles the async flow internally. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, the use case is evident from the stated purpose and the sibling list.

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