Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_noteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the creation and title derivation but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error handling. Adequate but not rich.

  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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and a key nuance (title from first line). It misses mention of return value or multi-account handling, but is largely 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's parameter info (Markdown, title derivation) largely repeats the schema, adding no new value 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 it creates a new note in a specific app (Notes.app) and explains how the title is derived from the first line of content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_note or delete_note.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the creation action is self-explanatory among siblings like list, read, update, delete, search. Implied usage.

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

• update_noteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds one key detail (first line of content becomes title) but does not disclose other aspects like whether the update is reversible, permissions needed, or side effects. The replacement nature is implied but not explicitly labeled as destructive.

  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, no redundant information, efficient delivery of core purpose and key behavior. Every word 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 update tool with no output schema and two well-described parameters, the description provides necessary context (Markdown, title extraction). It lacks mention of success/error responses or idempotency, but is sufficient for basic use.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that content is Markdown and explaining the first-line-to-title behavior, which is not in 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 action ('reemplazar el contenido completo') and the resource ('nota existente'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, delete, read, list, search) by focusing on replacement of existing content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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

• search_notesA
  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 full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: case-insensitive substring search, scope (title and content), and exclusion of Recently Deleted. Missing details like ordering or pagination are 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 description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose and key constraints.

  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 description covers basic purpose and behavioral traits but lacks details expected in search tools (e.g., result ordering, pagination, return format). Given no output schema, it leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

  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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema; it reiterates the search text and limit. Baseline 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 searches notes by text with case-insensitive substring matching in title and content, and excludes Recently Deleted. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes (which lists all) and read_note (single note).

  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 text search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_notes, read_note). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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

• list_notesA
  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 the return format (id, title, modification date), excludes full content, and excludes deleted notes. This provides key behavioral context beyond the schema, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or pagination.

  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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does and the output fields, second clarifies what is excluded. No wasted words.

  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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly outlines the output scope and important exclusions (no full content, no deleted notes). No additional information is needed.

  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 only parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the input schema (type, range, default, max). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

  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 verb 'list', the resource 'notes', and specifies the returned fields (id, title, modification date) while excluding full content and Recently Deleted notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (full content) and search_notes (filtered results).

  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 context by stating what is returned and excluded, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names (read_note, search_notes) provide implicit guidance. A clear 'use this when you need a summary list' would improve it.

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

• read_noteA
  4.3/5.0
  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 accurately describes a non-destructive read operation and specifies the output format. It could mention error behavior or idempotency, but the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

  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, concise sentence that contains all necessary information with no extraneous words.

  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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

  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% and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'id' parameter. 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 identifies the action as reading the full content of a note by its id and specifies the output format (Markdown). It distinguishes from siblings like list_notes and search_notes by focusing on retrieval of a single note's complete content.

  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 use when the user has the note's id and needs the full content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing all notes) or provide comparison with alternative tools.

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

• delete_noteA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the non-instantaneous deletion behavior—soft delete to 'Recently Deleted' with a ~30-day recovery window. This is critical behavioral context that the agent needs to know.

  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, then briefly explaining the consequence. No wasted words, 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 simple delete operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, the soft-delete behavior, and recovery window. No 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 action 'Elimina una nota de Notes.app' (deletes a note from Notes.app). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools (create, list, read, search, update).

  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 explains that the deletion mimics UI behavior: note moves to 'Recently Deleted' with ~30-day recovery. This provides context for the tool's effect, helping the agent decide when to use it, though no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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