Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_subagent_resultsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool retrieves results but doesn't disclose details like whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, or potential errors (e.g., for invalid session IDs). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational traits.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., clarifying 'completed' subagents), but it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'results' include (e.g., data format, success/failure status), behavioral aspects like error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent under-informed.

  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 the single parameter 'session_id' documented in the schema as 'Session ID to get results for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or context on where session IDs come from. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get results from completed subagents' clearly indicates the action (get) and target resource (results from subagents), but it's somewhat vague about what 'results' specifically entail. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_active_subagents' or 'delegate_to_subagents', leaving ambiguity about scope and relationship.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that subagents must be completed), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'list_active_subagents' for active ones or 'delegate_to_subagents' for initiating tasks. Usage context 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.

• create_goose_recipeC
  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 'create' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Goose recipe' entails, how it's used, or what happens after creation, leaving critical context gaps for a mutation 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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'create' and the resource 'Goose recipe for specialized subagents', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delegate_to_subagents' or 'list_active_subagents' by focusing on creation rather than delegation or listing, though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

  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 'delegate_to_subagents' or 'get_subagent_results'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as when a recipe is needed versus direct delegation, leaving usage unclear.

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

• delegate_to_subagentsC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but only mentions delegation for autonomous development. It omits critical details such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after delegation (e.g., asynchronous execution). The description is insufficient for a tool with complex parameters and no output schema.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly and what to expect, despite the schema covering parameters.

  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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying delegation involves tasks and subagents, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 as delegating tasks to Goose CLI subagents for autonomous development, specifying both the action (delegate) and target (subagents). It distinguishes from siblings like create_goose_recipe (recipe creation) and get_subagent_results (result retrieval), but doesn't explicitly contrast with list_active_subagents (listing agents).

  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 get_subagent_results for checking outcomes or list_active_subagents for monitoring. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without usage direction.

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

• list_active_subagentsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 action ('List') but doesn't describe what 'active' means, how status is reported, whether this is a read-only operation, or any limitations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve dynamic system state.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters.

  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 complexity of listing active subagents (which involves dynamic system state), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how 'active' is defined, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any, earning a baseline score for zero-parameter tools.

  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 ('List') and resource ('currently active subagents and their status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subagent_results' which might retrieve specific results rather than list active agents, but the distinction isn't explicit.

  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 'get_subagent_results' or 'delegate_to_subagents'. The description implies usage for checking active subagents, but lacks explicit 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.