Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• consolidate_and_pruneC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions dropping associations (destructive) and keeping the store fast, but does not explain what 'weak/unused' means, side effects, reversibility, or rate limits. The parameter max_loss_tolerance is not addressed.

  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 short but contains an unclear prefix 'Sleep' that detracts from clarity. It could be more concise without that word and still convey the purpose.

  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 simple schema (one optional param) and no output schema, the description is too vague. It fails to explain how max_loss_tolerance affects pruning or what the tool actually does in detail.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter max_loss_tolerance at all. No meaning is added beyond the schema.

  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 states the tool drops weak/unused associations, indicating a pruning operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interference_analysis or recall_by_association. However, the initial word 'Sleep' is confusing and suggests a different action.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like interference_analysis or store_holographic_snapshot. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• recall_by_associationB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'de-noised' but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only, permissions, or side effects.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded. Efficient but could include more parameter detail.

  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?

  Missing output schema, no annotations, and parameter details lacking. Does not explain return values or parameter behavior, leaving gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is only 33% (query has description). top_k and association_depth lack descriptions. Description does not add meaning beyond schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states it retrieves a de-noised meaning cloud from vague cues, using specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from sibling tools like consolidate_and_prune by focusing on indirect past references, though the term 'meaning cloud' may be jargon.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use when the user refers to the past indirectly,' giving clear context. Does not state when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

• interference_analysisB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning conflict and confidence but omits whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications.

  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 front-loads the action. It is concise, though could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.

  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 the simple structure (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the return type (conflict and confidence) and basic purpose. However, it lacks context on whether the tool modifies state or behavior under different conditions.

  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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'new_fact'. The description adds basic meaning by calling it a 'new fact' to check, but fails to specify format constraints or what constitutes a valid fact, leaving ambiguity.

  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 'check' and the resource 'collision between fact and belief', and distinguishes from siblings that focus on consolidation, recall, and storage. However, it lacks specificity on what 'collision' means and the exact output format, given no output schema.

  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 use for conflict detection, and sibling names suggest alternatives (e.g., recall_by_association for retrieval), but no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool is provided.

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

• store_holographic_snapshotB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting), auth requirements, or what 'superposed hypervector' implies for behavior. This is a significant gap 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose with no extraneous words. Every part is meaningful.

  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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits return value, usage examples, and behavioral details, leaving the tool underspecified for effective use.

  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?

  With 80% schema coverage, the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds conceptual context by grouping them into a 'structured memory' and 'superposed hypervector', which aids understanding beyond raw 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 verb 'Store' and the resource 'structured memory', enumerating the components (fact, context, emotional valence, importance, tags). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'recall_by_association' and 'consolidate_and_prune' by focusing on storage.

  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 the siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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