Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_repositoriesA
  3.5/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does specify that it returns repositories 'accessible by the authenticated GitHub user' and details what access levels are included (owner, collaborator, organization member), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

  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 and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, adds clarifying details about access levels, then provides a clear return format with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The example is separated for readability but remains concise.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, who it affects, and what it returns. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication or rate limits.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on the return value structure, which is helpful given the presence of an output schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Return all repositories accessible by the authenticated GitHub user.' It specifies the verb ('return') and resource ('repositories'), and clarifies scope ('accessible by the authenticated GitHub user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_summary' or 'get_repo_commits_today', which have different purposes.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others. The only contextual information is about what repositories are included, which relates to purpose rather than usage guidelines.

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

• get_daily_summaryA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it automatically detects the authenticated user, fetches repositories based on user roles, filters commits by date and author, groups by repository, and returns a formatted summary. It also specifies the return structure. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond token use.

  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 a clear opening sentence and a numbered list detailing steps, followed by return format and an example. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the numbered list is detailed but slightly verbose), and the example adds clarity but extends length.

  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 complexity (multiple internal steps) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It thoroughly explains the process, return format, and provides an example, compensating for the lack of annotations. No additional information is needed for effective use by an AI 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?

  There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's internal logic (e.g., steps like detecting user and filtering commits), which goes beyond the empty schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a summary of today's commits authored by the authenticated GitHub user.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('summary of today's commits'), and scope ('authored by the authenticated GitHub user'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_repo_commits_today' and 'list_repositories' by focusing on summarization and user-specific filtering.

  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 context by detailing the steps involved (e.g., detecting the authenticated user, fetching repositories, filtering commits), which suggests it's for daily personal summaries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_repo_commits_today' or 'list_repositories', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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

• get_repo_commits_todayA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying authentication context ('authored by the authenticated user'), date scope ('today's commits'), and detailed return format. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

  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?

  Perfectly structured with purpose statement, parameter documentation, return specification, and example. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

  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 moderate complexity, no annotations, but comprehensive output schema in the description, this is complete. The description covers purpose, parameters, authentication context, date scope, and detailed return format with example, leaving no gaps for the agent.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining repo_name's semantics, acceptable formats (short name vs owner/repo), and resolution logic when short name is provided. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 the specific action ('Return today's commits'), target resource ('for a single repository'), and scope ('authored by the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on commits rather than summaries or repository listings.

  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 context (today's commits, authenticated user's authorship) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_summary or list_repositories. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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