Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_smellsA
  4/5.0
  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 discloses that results are 'HEURISTICS ONLY — hints, never verdicts' and that 'a clean run does not certify good design.' This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It also implies no side effects (read-only scan), though it doesn't mention return format details or performance limits. The heuristic limitation is the key trait and is well disclosed.

  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, each adding essential information: what it scans, what each finding includes, and the critical heuristic caveat. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. The key info is front-loaded, and the caveat is placed appropriately at the end.

  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 the tool has 7 parameters but all are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It effectively communicates the tool's behavior and output characteristics (findings mapped to principles and refactors). It lacks a note on input languages or limitations, but for a static analysis heuristic tool, the description covers the essential operational context.

  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. Each parameter (e.g., maxDepth, maxParams) has a clear schema description. The tool description adds context by mapping the smells to the parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or interaction details beyond what the schema already offers. It doesn't compensate further because the schema is fully self-explanatory.

  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 ('Scan') and a clear resource ('a code snippet'), and lists the exact smells detected (long method, large class, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_catalog, explain_concept, and scaffold_pattern, which are unrelated. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

  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 context by stating its function and the heuristic caveat, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., supported languages, input size limits) or exclusions. The sibling tools are sufficiently different that use is implied, but not explicitly guided.

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

• list_catalogA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns each concept's slug, name, category, and one-line summary, and that filtering is optional. It does not describe side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient and adds value beyond the tool name.

  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 sentence that delivers the core action, the optional filter, and the return payload in a well-structured, front-loaded way. No filler or redundancy is present.

  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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and no siblings referenced in the description, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, the filter option, and the fields returned. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than sibling tools, which would make it fully 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'kind' parameter, including all enum values and their meanings. The description only mentions 'optionally filtered by kind' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool lists the catalog of software-design concepts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (scaffold_pattern, explain_concept, check_smells) by focusing on listing and optionally filtering, rather than scaffolding, explaining, or checking.

  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 concepts and optionally filtering by kind, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like explain_concept or check_smells. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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

• scaffold_patternA
  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. It discloses that the tool generates a language-agnostic pseudo-code skeleton, shows participants and collaboration, and allows role renaming. It also clarifies that the output is not final code by saying 'Translate the result into your target language,' giving meaningful behavioral expectations. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a generator these are not critical and the description is sufficiently 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence serves a purpose. The second sentence expands on optional behavior without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

  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 the tool's complexity (2 params, output schema, nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the main function, optional customization, and the need for translation. The output schema covers return structure, so the description need not repeat it. No critical gaps are present.

  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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds only a minor clarification ('Optionally rename roles to your domain') with an example already present in the schema. Thus it adds little meaning beyond the schema, supporting 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a language-agnostic pseudo-code skeleton for a GoF pattern.' It specifies the action (generate), the resource (skeleton for a GoF pattern), and the content (participants and collaboration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_catalog, explain_concept, and check_smells.

  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 usage for scaffolding a pattern and provides context about optional renaming and translation, making it clear when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using explain_concept for understanding rather than scaffolding. Thus it is clear context without explicit exclusion.

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

• explain_conceptA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 explicitly lists the output sections and input flexibility, making the behavior transparent. It does not detail edge cases or error handling, but these are minor for an explanation 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Highly efficient and clear.

  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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what inputs are acceptable, and what the explanation will contain. No gaps remain for the agent to invoke correctly.

  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% for the single 'name' parameter. The description adds value by explaining accepted formats (slug, full name, alias) with examples, which goes beyond the schema's example string.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool returns an authoritative explanation of a design principle or GoF pattern, listing specific content sections (intent, when to use, trade-offs, participants, related concepts). This distinguishes it from siblings like scaffold_pattern (generation) and check_smells (analysis).

  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 context: use for explanations of design principles/patterns, accepts slug, full name, or alias. Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to infer when to choose this tool over siblings.

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