Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• git_get_historyA
  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 bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates the return format (structured list with specific fields) and that data comes from HEAD. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, requires no authentication, or has no side effects. While these traits can be inferred, the description could be more transparent.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose (returns a list of recent commits from HEAD). Every part is necessary and there is no wasted text.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the fields returned (hash, author, date, message) and the source (HEAD). A small gap is that it does not mention the default commit count or the maximum (500) documented in the schema. Still, for a straightforward read operation, it is largely sufficient.

  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 covers the single parameter 'count' with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and the description adds no extra value for parameters.

  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 that the tool returns a structured list of recent commits from HEAD, specifying the exact fields (hash, author, date, message). This verb+resource+scope makes its purpose distinct from sibling tools like git_quick_squash, git_reword_commit, or git_rescue_reflog.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the context of sibling tool names implies different operations, there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for full history or filtered history). The description is adequate but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

• git_rescue_reflogA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only scanning behavior and identifies lost commits, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, or output format. Some behavioral details are implied but not confirmed.

  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 a single sentence that is moderately dense but front-loaded with the action. Every clause adds value, though it could be slightly restructured for readability. 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?

  Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core function and use cases. However, it lacks explicit details on the return format (e.g., list of hashes) and does not fully compensate for the missing output schema, leaving some ambiguity for an 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (none defined). The description adds context beyond the empty schema by explaining the tool's purpose and usage, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

  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 scans the git reflog and object database to identify HEAD movements and dangling/lost commits, with specific examples like bad rebase or hard reset, and explains the purpose (recovery by hash). It is distinct from siblings (history, squash, reword) which handle different tasks.

  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 states when to use this tool (to find lost commits from rebase or hard reset) and implies recovery by hash. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its specialized role.

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

• git_reword_commitA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: mentions non-interactive rebase, no editor prompts, rewrites history for the target commit and everything after. Adequately discloses side effects and prerequisites.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

  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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and consequences. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for commit_hash and new_message.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool 'updates the message of a specific commit' and distinguishes between HEAD and non-HEAD cases. Specifies the method (amend vs. rebase). Differentiates from siblings by naming sibling tools in context.

  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?

  Provides a prerequisite ('requires a clean working directory') but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool. The context lists sibling tools, but the description itself offers no guidance on selection.

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

• git_quick_squashA
  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 that the operation rewrites history and requires a clean state, which are key behavioral traits. It could additionally note that the operation is destructive once pushed.

  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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides necessary information. No filler or redundancy.

  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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, prerequisite, and a side effect. It could be more complete by noting irreversibility after force push, but the core is sufficient.

  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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (commit_count and new_message). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond restating the schema, so a baseline score 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 action: merging the last N commits into one via a soft reset with a new message. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like git_get_history (read-only) and git_reword_commit (single commit).

  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 mentions a critical prerequisite (clean working directory) and a consequence (rewrites history). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to 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.