Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• dibs_lesson_searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns ranked matches with snippets,' giving some insight into output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects, error conditions, or limitations beyond the schema. The verb 'search' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only relevant details. It is concise with zero wasted words, fully earnestly placed, and easy to parse.

  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?

  The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers its purpose, when to use it, and the general return format. It does not explain the exact structure of 'snippets' or the ranking criteria, but the essential information is present. The lack of an output schema means the description's 'ranked matches with snippets' is sufficient, but could be more specific, so a 4 is warranted.

  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%: both 'query' and 'limit' have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 states a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('lessons recorded by previous agents') and indicates the intended scope ('before working in unfamiliar territory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dibs_lesson_add, which adds lessons, and other dibs tools that manage status or notes.

  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: 'before working in unfamiliar territory.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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

• dibs_noteA
  4/5.0
  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 states that the note is broadcast to all agents, but does not mention whether the note is stored, persisted, or how it relates to the sibling dibs_notes tool. This leaves some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

  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, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

  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?

  For a low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and usage. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the relationship with the related dibs_notes tool, but this is a minor omission.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the 'message' parameter, including an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it receives the 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 uses the specific verb 'broadcast' with a clear resource ('a short note') and target ('every agent working on this repo'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like dibs_notes by focusing on sending rather than reading.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'for handoffs and heads-ups that affect others.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• dibs_releaseA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses a behavioral trait beyond the schema: 'Leases also expire on their own.' However, it does not mention whether release is reversible, requires ownership, or what the response looks like, leaving partial disclosure.

  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?

  Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a useful behavioral note. No wasted words.

  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?

  For a simple release tool with no output schema and optional parameters, the description plus schema is adequate. It explains when to use, the auto-expiry behavior, and the schema covers parameter semantics. It could mention the distinction between all and patterns, but that is already in the schema, making it reasonably 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?

  The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('all' and 'patterns'), with 100% coverage. The description adds little to parameter meaning, only reinforcing that claims being released are the agent's own. Baseline of 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 uses the verb 'Release' with the resource 'your claims', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dibs_claim and dibs_status by describing the act of releasing, not checking or claiming.

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use ('when you finish working on an area') and the benefit ('so other agents can proceed'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this after claiming.

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

• dibs_notesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses the side effect (marks notes read) and timing, but does not explain return format, whether it filters to unread notes, or what happens if there are no notes. Adequate but incomplete.

  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?

  Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core function and side effect; the second gives concrete usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers what and when, but not the return value or behavior on subsequent reads. It leaves ambiguity about whether already-read notes are returned. Sufficient for basic use but not fully complete.

  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 zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The baseline is 4 per the rubric; the description adds no parameter confusion and correctly omits parameter details.

  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 it reads notes from other agents and marks them read, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dibs_note (which presumably writes notes). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

  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 provides when to use the tool: at the start of a session and before starting new work. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the timing guidance is clear.

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

• dibs_checkA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns FREE or HELD, and that HELD includes ownership and expiry information. This is sufficient for a read-only check operation, though it could have noted absence of side effects or edge cases.

  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, compact, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning, including the concise explanation of return values.

  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?

  For a simple check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it checks, what the result means, and how to interpret the output. It does not discuss error cases, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and clear parameter definition.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's 'repo-relative file paths', but it does reinforce the purpose by linking paths to claims. No new parameter-level detail is provided.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('files claimed by another agent'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also explains the meaning of outcomes (FREE, HELD), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dibs_claim and dibs_release.

  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 implies when to use it: before editing files to ensure they are not claimed by another agent. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention dibs_status, but the usage context is clear from the FREE/HELD explanation.

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

• dibs_lesson_addA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the file location, git sharing mechanism, and the type of content. It does not mention overwrite behavior or auto-commit details, but the core side effect (writing a markdown file) is clear.

  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?

  Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and destination, and the second sets content boundaries. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple add-tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, storage location, and content policy. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention potential file overwrite or naming behavior.

  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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the body's content (gotchas, conventions, fixes) but does not provide parameter-level syntax beyond the 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 saves a lesson as a markdown file under .dibs/lessons/, with a specific verb ('Save') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lesson_search and notes by focusing on persistent, git-shared lessons.

  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 explicit when-not guidance ('not routine work logs') and describes the appropriate content ('gotchas, conventions, hard-won fixes'). It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusion helps agents decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

• dibs_claimA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the possible outcomes (GRANTED with expiry, DENIED with holder details) and the renewal behavior, which is significant and helpful. It does not mention any caveats like permissions or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

  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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers return values, and the third explains renewal. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important 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?

  The description is complete for a lease tool: it covers the purpose, the return values (compensating for the lack of an output schema), and the key behavior of renewal. All parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description integrates well with sibling tools without needing to reference them for this tool's 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?

  The input schema already provides 100% documentation for all parameters (ttl, reason, patterns), including types and examples. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states; it only reiterates glob patterns and renewal behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Claim files or glob patterns before editing them, so parallel agents don't collide.' This uses a specific verb (claim), a resource (files/glob patterns), and explains the intended use, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dibs_release and dibs_status.

  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 specifies when to use the tool: 'before editing them' and for avoiding collisions among parallel agents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of the 'when-not-to-use' criterion. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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

• dibs_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only status view by saying 'See the whole picture' and specifies exactly what information is displayed. While it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects,' the observational nature and session-start recommendation make the behavior predictable.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, content, and usage timing. Every phrase contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells what information will be shown and when to call it. Additional details are unnecessary for this simple status tool.

  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 input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by explaining what the no-parameter tool returns, which goes beyond the empty 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 what the tool does: it provides a status overview showing active agents, live claims with expiry, and unread note count. The verb 'See' plus the listed content makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dibs_claim or dibs_release.

  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 instruction 'Call this at the start of a session' provides explicit timing guidance. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the directive is unambiguous and actionable.

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