Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pack_contextA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses meaningful behavioral details: token budgeting, relevance ranking, and the heuristic 'Prefer entrypoints and paths matching focus keywords'. However, it does not describe output structure or potential side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

  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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 relatively simple tool with a fully described 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and selection behavior. It could mention the exact structure of the markdown bundle, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 has 100% coverage of all four parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the role of 'focus' keywords. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'packs a token-budgeted markdown bundle of the most relevant source files for an LLM', with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by implying this assembles context rather than just mapping or searching code.

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases: 'Use for PR review or task kickoff.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• repo_mapA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a key behavioral fact: 'Honors .gitignore.' It also implies read-only behavior via 'lightweight map' and orientation. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., symlinks, file content exclusion), but for a mapping tool this is adequate.

  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 just two sentences: the first defines the tool's core function and outputs, the second provides usage guidance and a key behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no waste, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

  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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it produces, when to use it, and a notable behavior. It does not detail return format, but that is partially inferred from the listed outputs. Sibling differentiation could be stronger, but overall it is reasonably 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (root, max_depth, max_entries) explained in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 tool's purpose: 'Build a lightweight repository map: directory tree, file count, and likely entrypoints/manifests.' It specifies the verb (build), resource (repository map), and concrete outputs. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_code (searching) and pack_context (packing) by framing it as an orientation tool.

  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 says 'Use this first to orient before reading files,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It implies an ordering relative to sibling tools but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a flawless 5.

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

• search_codeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: case-insensitive default, return format (path:line hits with surrounding line text), and the skipping of .gitignore and vendor dirs. This goes beyond basic operation and addresses important edge cases.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, each earning its place: action, return format, and skip behavior. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, 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 absence of an output schema, the description properly explains the return format. It covers default behavior and project-ignoring rules. It does not mention max_results default, but the schema covers that, so completeness is high for a search tool.

  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 adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it restates case-insensitivity (already in schema) and mentions output format, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what properties already describe.

  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 searches source files for a substring, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('source files'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings (repo_map, pack_context) by its unique focus on substring search with output details (path:line hits).

  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 clear context on what the tool does, making it obvious when to use it (e.g., finding string occurrences in code). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the siblings are for mapping/packing context, so the usage is clear. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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