Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delegate_testsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that changes to production code are avoided unless strictly required, which is more nuanced than the annotation alone. It also mentions optional run_tests behavior. No contradictions.

  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 clear sections (Args, See also, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter but remains effective.

  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 14 parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers core behavior, parameter semantics, and cross-references delegate_task for completeness. The return value is not detailed but correctly noted as same shape as delegate_task. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error handling or side effects beyond 'avoids production code changes'.

  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?

  With 36% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing and explaining many parameters (scope, directory, framework, run_tests, response_format, and the alias task). However, several parameters are only referenced as 'same as delegate_task' without full detail, relying on the agent's knowledge of that sibling. Some meaning is added, but not complete.

  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 explicitly states it is a test-focused wrapper around delegate_task, with the subagent writing and optionally running tests while avoiding production code changes. This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from the general-purpose delegate_task sibling.

  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?

  The description provides clear guidance: it is for test writing/running, avoids production code changes unless necessary, and explicitly references delegate_task as an alternative with a different parameter name (task vs scope). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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

• get_delegate_configA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (config file path, named profiles) 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?

  Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  Lists multiple return fields, adequate for a read-only tool. No mention of error cases, but given simplicity, acceptable.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline 4. Description correctly avoids any parameter discussion.

  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 it returns the delegate configuration, listing specific fields (default model/provider, agent, variant, etc.) and explicitly says 'Read-only.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_delegate_config (modify) and delegate_task (execute).

  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 says 'read-only', implying safe invocation. While no explicit 'when not to use' is given, the sibling tools cover different operations, so context is clear.

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

• list_modelsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining return format and filtering behavior, without contradicting 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?

  Concise and well-structured with an introductory sentence and bullet list for parameters. No redundant information.

  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 list tool with readOnly/idempotent hints and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, output format, and usage context.

  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?

  Description adds examples and clarifies defaults for all 4 parameters. Schema has 75% coverage with descriptions; description compensates for the gap by adding examples and context, though defaults are already in 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 it lists available provider/model IDs, gives an example format, and explains their use with `delegate_task` or `set_delegate_config`, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

  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?

  Description specifies when to use (to get model IDs for delegation) and mentions optional filtering. It lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but 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.

• set_delegate_configA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations indicate mutable, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical detail: runtime dynamic switching, partial updates, profile merging (not replacement), and null-based removal. This enriches the annotation signals without contradiction.

  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 well-structured: purpose first, then partial update note, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is sufficiently detailed yet concise.

  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?

  Despite 8 optional parameters and nested objects, the description covers all fields and behavior (merge/remove). It states the return value ('Returns the updated config'), fulfilling completeness for a configuration update tool without output schema.

  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 low (25%), but the description compensates by explaining all 8 parameters, including the complex profiles object (merge vs remove behavior). It adds clear examples (e.g., 'openrouter/minimax/minimax-m2.5') and specific usage notes.

  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 identifies the tool's function: 'Change the active delegation settings at runtime' with a specific verb ('change') and resource ('delegate configuration'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_delegate_config, delegate_task) by focusing on updating configuration.

  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 operational guidance: 'Only the fields you pass are updated' and explains profile merging and removal behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_delegate_config for reading or delegate_task for delegation, 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.

• delegate_taskA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations indicate destructive hint true and readOnly false. The description adds significant context: subagent can read/write/edit files, run shell commands, auto-approve by default, does not see conversation, and returns structured content. This exceeds annotation info without contradiction.

  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 well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value, despite length being appropriate for 12 parameters.

  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 12 parameters, no output schema (but return structure described), and complexity of delegation, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and sibling differentiation comprehensively.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds usage context to key parameters (e.g., 'task/scope alias for parity with delegate_tests', directory default, model override, etc.), enhancing understanding beyond 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 delegates a coding task to a cheaper model, specifying the verb 'delegate' and resource 'coding task'. It differentiates from sibling tool 'delegate_tests' by noting the alias 'scope' and that 'delegate_tests' is for test-writing.

  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?

  The description provides explicit 'Good for' and 'Avoid for' sections, guiding when to use the tool. It mentions the subagent is auto-approved and runs non-interactively, and suggests 'delegate_tests' as an alternative for test-writing.

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