Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_noteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only states that it returns formatted content with metadata, but doesn't disclose the read-only nature, error handling (e.g., missing ID), or any permissions/rate limits. The lack of such details makes it opaque for an unannotated 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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections, providing exactly the needed detail without any fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input format and return type, though it omits potential error states or preconditions. Still, given its simplicity, it's 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?

  The description adds meaning by specifying the format of note_id as an x-coredata:// URL, which is not present in the schema's type-only definition. This helps the agent construct the parameter correctly despite the schema being minimal.

  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 the full content of a specific note by ID, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('note by ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reading a single note versus creating, appending, or listing notes.

  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 the user needs the complete content of one note, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since siblings are visible, the intended context is clear, but there's no direct comparison or exclusion.

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

• create_noteA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return value ('Success message with note ID') but does not disclose what happens if a note with the same title already exists, whether creation overwrites or errors, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section clearly maps each parameter, and the Returns section provides output expectations. Every sentence is useful, with no padding 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 simple create operation with two string parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its parameters, and its return value. The presence of an output schema is noted but the description already includes the return info. Minor gaps like duplicate handling prevent a 5, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

  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 provides only type 'string' with no descriptions, so the description carries the burden. It clearly defines 'title' as the title and 'body' as the content/body, which adds meaning beyond the schema. It does not include potential constraints (e.g., max length), but the basics are well-covered.

  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: 'Create a new note in Claude Diary folder'. The verb 'create' and resource 'note' are specific, and the phrase 'Claude Diary folder' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_to_note, which modifies an existing note, and get_note/get_notes_list, which retrieve 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 clearly indicates when to use this tool ('Create a new note'), and the contrast with sibling names (append, get) implies it is for new records rather than modifications or reads. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where other tools would be preferred, which would make it a 5.

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

• append_to_noteA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses the append-only behavior, explicitly stating it cannot overwrite or delete, and framing it as a safety feature. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple verb phrase.

  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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and a Note section, making it easy to scan. It is mostly concise, though the append-only emphasis is repeated, which is slightly redundant but reinforces the key safety trait.

  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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the operation, parameters, return value, and a behavioral caveat. Minor gaps like error cases and formatting are not critical for such a straightforward 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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining note_id as 'the ID of the note to append to (x-coredata:// URL)' and content as 'the content to append'. This provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's plain string types, though more detail could be added.

  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 'Append content to an existing note' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'APPEND ONLY - no overwrite' clarifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note and get_note. The purpose is unambiguous.

  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 for adding content to an existing note, and the append-only constraint suggests a safe operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the guidance implicit.

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

• get_notes_listA
  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 and discloses that date filtering is 'not yet implemented', that it 'currently returns all notes', and that the output is a 'formatted list of notes with metadata'. This gives important behavioral expectations beyond the 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 well-structured with leading purpose, Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every line adds value, especially the note about unimplemented parameters, without 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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it lists, current behavior, and parameter status. It doesn't mention sorting or folder details, but these are not critical given the sibling context.

  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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by providing the ISO format for start_date and end_date and explicitly noting they are 'not yet implemented'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type and default.

  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 'Get list of notes from Claude Diary folder', specifying a concrete action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_note (single note) and create_note, making the list-scope explicit.

  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 for listing notes but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools. It doesn't state 'use this when you need all notes, use get_note for one note', leaving this to inference from sibling names.

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