Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• condense_sourceA
  3.9/5.0
  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 does well by disclosing the AST-aware transformation, what is preserved, what is removed, and the token reduction effect. It does not explicitly state whether the operation mutates the original file or returns a new representation, but 'Extracts' implies a non-destructive output.

  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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, uses a parenthetical to efficiently list preserved versus stripped elements, and closes with a concrete benefit. There is no filler or redundant information.

  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?

  The core purpose and behavior are clearly described, and the two parameters are simple enough that an agent can invoke the tool with just a path. However, there is no explicit statement about the return format or output representation, and no sibling differentiation, which is more noticeable because no output schema exists.

  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%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how path resolution works or what role preserveDocstrings plays beyond its schema description, so a baseline score 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 a specific verb ('Extracts') and resource ('structural skeleton of a source file'), and clearly states what is preserved (imports, interfaces, types, signatures) versus stripped (implementation bodies). This makes the tool's function distinct from siblings like extract_symbol or compress_log.

  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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a condensed, structurally faithful representation of source code to reduce token consumption. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like extract_symbol or compress_log, and no mention of when not to use it.

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

• compress_logA
  4/5.0
  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 does a solid job: it discloses that the tool filters, compresses, extracts failures, and discards noise. It also defines the output focus ('root-cause failures and actionable file locations'). However, it does not mention input precedence when both rawLog and logPath are supplied, nor the return format, leaving minor gaps.

  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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists supported log types and the desired outcome. There is no filler or repetition of schema names, and every clause adds useful information.

  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 description is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex tool with no output schema and no annotations: it covers operation, input domain, output intent, and specific tool ecosystems. The only notable omission is the returned data structure and how the two optional inputs interact, but these are not critical for basic invocation with schema coverage at 100%.

  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 both parameters (rawLog and logPath) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

  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 opens with strong verbs ('Filters and compresses') and names a specific resource: verbose test runs, build logs, and compiler outputs. It also states the intended outcome ('extract only the root-cause failures and actionable file locations') and what is discarded ('passing suites and noise'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_symbol and condense_source, which target different source types and extraction goals.

  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 clearly implies the use case—compress verbose build/test logs to isolate failures—but it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names alternative tools. Sibling tools like condense_source could plausibly overlap, and the description does not draw an explicit boundary. Usage guidance is present but only by inference.

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

• extract_symbolA
  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 discloses important behavioral traits: only the exact implementation is returned, top-level imports are included, and the rest of the file is omitted. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's outcome. It does not, however, mention edge cases like missing symbols or multiple definitions.

  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, dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Surgically extracts only the exact implementation') and immediately follows with the key constraints. No filler or redundant phrasing.

  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 no output schema, the description covers what is extracted, what is included, and what is omitted. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the output format explicitly or what happens when the symbol is not found. Those are minor gaps given the low complexity.

  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 reinforces that 'symbol' refers to a function, class, method, or interface, and implies 'path' is a source file path, but it does not add meaningful syntax, format, or resolution details 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 states a precise verb ('extracts'), a specific resource ('implementation of a named function, class, method, or interface'), and a distinctive scope ('top-level imports, omitting the rest'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like condense_source or compress_log.

  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 the intended use case—pulling a single symbol's implementation while saving tokens—but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions. The usage context is present but only implicit.

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

• token_budget_viewA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the tool analyzes rather than mutates and that it returns recommendations, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe failure conditions, but the analytical verbs make the non-destructive nature reasonably 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?

  The entire definition is one front-loaded, information-dense sentence. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the analyzed metrics, and the actionable output are all present without filler.

  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 one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what it analyzes, what it returns, and why it matters. The only notable gap is explicit guidance on choosing between this and its siblings, but that is already accounted for in usage guidelines.

  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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that the path points to a source file, so the baseline of 3 applies; no parameter-semantic gap exists.

  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, 'Analyzes,' and names the resource ('a source file') and the exact metrics (line count, estimated LLM token weight), plus the outcome ('actionable recommendations to avoid context saturation'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like condense_source and compress_log, which imply modification rather than analysis.

  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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'to avoid context saturation,' suggesting it should be run before condensing or compressing a file. However, it never names sibling tools or states when not to use it, so an agent must infer the routing decision from the purpose alone.

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