Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lupa_list_testsB
  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 burden. Only states it does not run tests, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or output behavior.

  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?

  One sentence with clear core action, plus optional filter. Efficient but could be slightly more structured.

  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 and no description of return value or filter logic (AND/OR). For a listing tool with 5 parameters, description is too minimal to be 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. Description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Optionally filter the list', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 lists test files, suites, and tests without running them. It distinguishes from sibling 'lupa_list_test_files' by implying broader scope, but does not explicitly differentiate.

  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?

  Implies use when you want to see available tests without execution, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'lupa_run_tests' and 'lupa_list_test_files' exist but no guidance on choosing.

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

• lupa_initA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description only mentions non-interactive and default arguments. It does not disclose side effects like file creation, overwriting behavior, or reversibility. For a tool that modifies a project, more behavioral details are needed.

  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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage guideline. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  For a tool that initializes a framework with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'default scaffolding' entails, what files are created, or what the tool returns. More context is needed for safe usage.

  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 description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Per rules, baseline is 3.

  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 initializes the lupa testing framework with default scaffolding, avoiding interactive prompts. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list/run) by being the initialization 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?

  Explicitly states to use this tool instead of running `npx lupa init` via terminal to ensure non-interactive execution and correct arguments. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are distinct enough.

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

• lupa_run_testsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns structured JSON but omits details about side effects (e.g., file modification, console output), prerequisites (e.g., required project setup), error behavior, or destructive potential. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's runtime behavior.

  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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and output, and the second provides a concrete usage example. Ideal conciseness for a tool with moderate complexity.

  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 five parameters (mostly filters) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how filters combine (AND/OR), the structure of the JSON result, error handling for invalid configPath, or prerequisites (e.g., project initialization via lupa_init). These gaps make the tool less predictable for an AI agent.

  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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, this yields a baseline score of 3.

  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 action ('Run Lupa tests'), the output format ('structured JSON results'), and a primary use case ('identify failing tests'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like lupa_init, lupa_list_test_files, and lupa_list_tests by specifying execution rather than initialization or listing.

  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 a clear usage context ('Use this to identify failing tests') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other purposes. The context signals and sibling names imply differentiation, but the description lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

• lupa_list_test_filesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool does not run tests or start Vite/Playwright, indicating it is non-destructive and read-only. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like error handling or performance characteristics.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behavior. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included.

  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?

  Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value (e.g., list of file paths) or behavior with the configPath requirement. It lacks crucial context for a tool with moderate 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's role in parameter semantics is minimal. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. Baseline 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 'List test files resolved by Lupa config' and explicitly distinguishes from running tests or starting Vite/Playwright. It differentiates from sibling tools like lupa_run_tests and lupa_list_tests by specifying it's a dry-run listing.

  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 when you want to preview test files without execution, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., lupa_list_tests). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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