Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_chunkA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it auto-loads the diff file if not loaded and that it provides manageable portions. It correctly notes the absolute path requirement. No contradictions.

  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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, critical requirement, behavioral note, and progress tracking advice. Well-structured but could be slightly more concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, critical requirements (absolute path), behavioral traits (auto-loading, manageable portions), and guidance for comprehensive analysis. No gaps identified.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds the critical constraint that 'absolute_file_path' must be an absolute path, which is not in the schema. It also implies chunk_number is 1-indexed. Adds meaningful value beyond schema.

  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 retrieves content of a specific chunk from a diff file. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it is for individual chunks identified via list_chunks or find_chunks_for_files, and explicitly warns against reading diff files directly.

  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 clear when-to-use scenarios: systematic chunk-by-chunk analysis or examining specific chunks. Includes a critical note about absolute paths and a 'DO NOT' instruction for reading diff files directly. Slightly less explicit about alternatives but gives good context.

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

• load_diffA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with description. Description adds behavioral context: absolute path, file size limitation, and need to clean tracking state. However, does not detail error handling or response content.

  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?

  Description is concise, front-loads purpose, and contains no redundant text. Slightly verbose with multiple sentences but still efficient.

  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 7 parameters well-described in schema and text, no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage, warnings, and behavioral notes. Missing some details on return values, but overall adequate.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds extra meaning for parameters (e.g., 'whitespace-only changes' for skip_trivial, 'build artifacts' for skip_generated, 'comma-separated glob patterns' for exclude/include), justifying higher score.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb (parse/load) and resource (diff file), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for non-default chunking settings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says when to use (custom settings) and when not to (use siblings for defaults). Provides critical warnings: absolute path required, file too large, cleanup of tracking state.

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

• list_chunksA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavior: 'Auto-loads the diff file with optimal defaults if not already loaded' and mentions response includes 'total_token_count'. Does not contradict annotations. Could mention error behavior if file not found, but still adds significant context.

  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?

  Description is packed with useful information and front-loaded with purpose. While every sentence adds value, it is slightly verbose. Could be tightened but still clear and efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage guidelines, critical requirements, and expected response (file mappings, summaries, token counts). No gaps identified.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds critical semantic info beyond the schema: 'You must use an absolute directory path - relative paths will fail.' This ensures correct usage.

  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: 'Get an overview of all chunks in a diff file with file mappings and summaries.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_chunk' by positioning itself as the first step for understanding scope and structure.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly guides when to use: 'Use this as your first step' and 'If using tracking documents to resume analysis, use this to orient yourself.' Also provides critical warnings: absolute path required, do not read diff file directly. Includes alternatives implicitly by describing the tool's role.

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

• get_file_diffA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses auto-loading behavior and path requirement. No contradictions with annotations.

  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?

  Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral note, error condition. Concise and front-loaded with essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description explains return value. With good annotations and clear parameter semantics, it provides complete contextual information for correct usage.

  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?

  Schema covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds valuable context: file_path can be exact path or glob, and absolute_file_path must be absolute. Adds nuance beyond schema.

  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 ('extract'), the resource ('complete diff for a single file'), and the output ('diff --git header and all hunks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chunk and list_chunks.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly tells when to use ('when you need changes for one specific file'), references sibling tools for decision-making ('Use list_chunks... decide whether to use this tool or get_chunk'), and includes a critical requirement ('absolute directory path - relative paths will fail').

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

• find_chunks_for_filesA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond readOnlyHint=true annotation, description reveals auto-loading behavior and that output is chunk numbers. Warns about relative path failure. No contradictions.

  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?

  5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds unique value (purpose, auto-load, use case, examples, critical warnings). No redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 2 required parameters and no output schema, description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, constraints, and next step (use get_chunk). Siblings listed for context.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema covers 100% parameters, but description adds valuable context: pattern examples ('*.py'), and reiterates absolute path requirement with rationale.

  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?

  Clear verb+resource: 'Locate chunks containing files' with specific glob pattern. Distinguishes from siblings like get_chunk and list_chunks by focusing on file-pattern based searching.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states when to use (targeted analysis instead of processing entire diffs), critical constraints (absolute path required, no direct file reading), and alternatives relative to sibling tools.

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