Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• redux_dispatch_actionC
  2.8/5.0
  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 states the tool dispatches an action (implying mutation) but offers no details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility, which is critical for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is too sparse given the tool's complexity. It does not include enough information to earn its place.

  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 the absence of annotations and output schema, and the tool's nature as an action dispatcher with three parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, and behavior.

  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 all three parameters (type, payload, storeName) with descriptions, giving schema coverage of 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 verb "Dispatch" and the resource "action to the Redux store," making the basic purpose apparent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., redux_get_state), though the action is inherently different.

  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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer usage from context.

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

• redux_get_actionsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states it returns data but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or non-destructive. However, the name 'get_actions' implies safe retrieval, and no side effects are mentioned. Adequate but not thorough.

  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-loads purpose. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  No output schema, yet the description does not specify the structure of returned actions or history. Lacks details on format (e.g., array of strings, objects) or behavior when includeHistory is false. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the response.

  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 describes the single parameter 'includeHistory' with a clear description and default. The tool description adds no further meaning, so scores at baseline given 100% 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 clearly states the tool returns available actions and optionally dispatched history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like redux_dispatch_action and redux_get_state by focusing on action listing and history retrieval.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. Does not mention that it is ideal for inspecting available action types before dispatching or for debugging dispatched actions, nor does it exclude cases where history is not needed.

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

• redux_reset_stateA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses resetting state and action history but fails to mention side effects (e.g., irreversibility, loss of unsaved data) or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is necessary and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

  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 description is adequate for a zero-parameter tool but lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether the reset is reversible, affects other users, or returns a confirmation). Given no output schema or annotations, more detail would be helpful.

  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 description does not need to add param info. Baseline is 4; the description correctly identifies what is reset, which is sufficient.

  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 'Reset' and the resource 'Redux state and action history', distinguishing it from siblings which perform reading (get_state, get_actions) or dispatching actions.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not specify prerequisites, consequences, or conditions under which resetting is appropriate.

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

• redux_get_state_diffA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect of rememberCurrentAsPrevious (storing the snapshot), and clearly states the tool provides diffs. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only overall or if authentication is required, though the getter-like name implies safety.

  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?

  A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value with no 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, no nested objects), the description sufficiently explains the operation. It could mention the return format (e.g., a diff object) but is otherwise complete for its scope.

  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% and schema descriptions already explain both parameters clearly. The tool description adds context about 'field-level changes' and 'previous snapshot' but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own 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 returns field-level changes between current state and a previous snapshot or provided baseline. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('field-level changes'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like redux_get_state (which returns the whole state) by focusing on diffs.

  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 through the parameter explanation ('if omitted, uses last remembered snapshot'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redux_get_state or redux_get_actions. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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

• redux_get_stateA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description 'return' implies a non-destructive read, which is transparent. With no annotations, it carries the burden well by indicating the operation is safe and stateless.

  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, perfectly front-loaded, no wasted words. 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?

  A simple getter with no output schema; describing the return as 'Redux store snapshot' is sufficient. Could specify depth or format, but not necessary for clarity.

  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 exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description provides no parameter info, which is fine since none are needed. Baseline 4 applies.

  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 'Return the current Redux store snapshot,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redux_dispatch_action (dispatch) and redux_get_state_diff (diff).

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident as a simple read operation, so it's minimally adequate.

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