Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_unreasonable_thoughtC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool 'efficiently creates thoughts without loading full context', which hints at performance characteristics but lacks details on what 'efficiently' means (e.g., speed, resource usage) or what 'full context' entails. It doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

  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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a behavioral note. There's no wasted text, but the second sentence ('Efficiently creates thoughts without loading full context') could be more precise to enhance clarity, slightly reducing the score from 5.

  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 tool's complexity (generating thoughts with three parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'unreasonable thought' entails, how it's generated, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites. The behavioral note is vague, and without structured data to fill gaps, the description falls short of providing sufficient context for effective use.

  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% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, usage examples, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

  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: 'Generate a new unreasonable thought that challenges conventional thinking.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('unreasonable thought'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'branch_thought' and 'search_thoughts' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'branch_thought' which might also generate thoughts, making it a 4 instead of a 5.

  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 like 'branch_thought' or 'search_thoughts'. It mentions 'without loading full context' but doesn't explain what that means in practice or when this efficiency is beneficial. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.

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

• search_thoughtsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('only matching IDs and metadata, not full content') and efficiency, but lacks critical behavioral details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with key information. However, the third sentence 'Enables efficient filtering' is somewhat redundant with the first, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured but could be tighter.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format in detail (e.g., structure of metadata), error conditions, or how results are ordered. For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or edge cases). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  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: 'Search for thought IDs by metadata' specifies the verb (search) and resource (thought IDs), and 'Returns only matching IDs and metadata, not full content' clarifies the output scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'branch_thought' or 'generate_unreasonable_thought', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 minimal guidance: 'Enables efficient filtering' implies when to use it, but there's no explicit context about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no comparison with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps in usage guidance.

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

• branch_thoughtB
  3.3/5.0
  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 adds useful context about the return value ('Returns only metadata, not full content'), which clarifies output behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the core action and a critical behavioral detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key output limitation, but for a mutation tool, it should ideally include more on permissions, side effects, or error cases to be fully 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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'direction' values or context for 'thoughtId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new branch of thinking from an existing thought'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on branching rather than generation or searching, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives for full differentiation.

  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 sibling tools (generate_unreasonable_thought, search_thoughts). It mentions the tool's scope ('from an existing thought') but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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