Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_typescript_definitionB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains what the tool does (finds definitions) and provides usage examples, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error conditions, performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when symbols aren't found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the triggering mechanism and core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first explains triggering, the second states the purpose, the third provides usage context, and the fourth explains parameter usage. There's minimal redundancy, though the final sentence could be slightly more concise.

  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?

  Given there's no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and how to use it. However, for a tool that performs code analysis (potentially complex), it lacks information about return format, error handling, and limitations. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves important contextual gaps.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds some context about how parameters relate ('symbol must be present in the line_content') and provides examples, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find the definition of a TypeScript symbol in your codebase' with specific examples. It uses the verb 'find' and identifies the resource 'TypeScript symbol definition'. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives.

  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: 'When you encounter an imported symbol... this tool will locate its original definition file and code.' It gives specific examples and explains the triggering mechanism ('/ts-def'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any alternatives since no siblings exist.

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