Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_operatorsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) but adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not disclose details like output format or potential side effects (though none expected).

  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 is well-structured and front-loaded. Every word adds value without redundancy.

  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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but does not mention return values or the format of analysis results. With sibling tools lacking output schemas, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond the schema's descriptions.

  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 analyzes RxJS code for specific aspects (creation functions, operators, performance patterns, best practices). This is distinct from siblings like detect_memory_leak, lint_rxjs, and suggest_pattern, which focus on different aspects.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over siblings like suggest_pattern or lint_rxjs, nor does it indicate 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.

• suggest_patternA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, so credit is minimal.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core functionality efficiently.

  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 is minimally complete for a simple suggestion tool with good annotations. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., text, code snippets), which would help the agent understand the output.

  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%, with both parameters fully described via enums and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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's purpose: to suggest RxJS patterns and best practices for common use cases. The verb 'suggest' and the resource 'RxJS patterns and best practices' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like analyze_operators or detect_memory_leak.

  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 tool is for when a developer needs pattern suggestions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. More guidance on context (e.g., comparing with other tools) would be helpful.

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

• detect_memory_leakA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) already indicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by noting it 'recognizes modern auto-cleanup patterns...to avoid false positives,' which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

  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. First sentence gives primary purpose, second adds key detail about auto-cleanup patterns. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema and no description of return values (e.g., format of leak reports, severity levels, or actionable insights). For a code analysis tool, this is a significant gap. Lacks context on limitations or edge cases (e.g., does it handle all RxJS versions?). Incomplete for AI agent to fully understand what to expect.

  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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond 'analyze for leaks'—it does not explain param constraints, inputs, or variations. 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's purpose: 'Analyze RxJS code for potential memory leaks and subscription management issues.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (RxJS code), and goal (detect leaks/issues). It also differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_operators by focusing on memory leaks.

  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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like analyze_operators, execute_stream, etc. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The context implies use for RxJS leak detection, but lacks clear usage boundaries.

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

• execute_streamA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but description adds that code runs in a separate worker thread for security, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

  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?

  Extremely concise with two sentences covering execution isolation and capture of metrics. No wasted words.

  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?

  No output schema, so description should explain return values. It mentions capturing emissions and metrics but does not specify format or structure. Parameters are not elaborated.

  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 description adds no extra parameter context beyond what schema already provides. 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?

  Clear verb 'execute' and 'capture', specific resource 'RxJS code' and outputs 'stream emissions, timeline, performance metrics'. Distinct from sibling tools that analyze or suggest patterns.

  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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'analyze_operators' or 'lint_rxjs'. Description mentions isolated execution for security but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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

• generate_marbleA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose safety. It adds the intent of visualization but does not describe output format, limitations, or behavior for edge cases. With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's 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?

  Given that the tool has 4 parameters all described in the schema, and annotations are present, the description is fairly complete for a generation tool. It could include an example or note about output appearance, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the task.

  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 schema already documents all parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 that the tool generates ASCII marble diagrams for visualizing RxJS stream emissions. It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (ASCII marble diagrams), and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_operators or execute_stream, which have different purposes.

  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 tool is for visualizing RxJS streams during debugging or learning, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage context.

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

• lint_rxjsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds value by disclosing it is a regex-based best-effort analysis without ESLint runtime, and that type-info-required rules use heuristics leading to potential false positives/negatives. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether results are structured or plain text), which is notable given no output 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key characteristic (regex-based). It then provides supporting details in a logical order: derived from plugin, specific checks, limitations, and framework support. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 tool has 4 parameters but no output schema. While the description covers the tool's limitations and framework support, it does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. This omission, given the importance of understanding the analysis output, leaves the description somewhat incomplete.

  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 does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions framework-specific rules (tying to framework parameter) and heuristics for type-info-required rules (related to rules parameter), but these are implied from the schema or context.

  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 lints RxJS code snippets using regex, lists specific issues it checks (nested subscribes, memory leaks, deprecated patterns), and mentions multiple frameworks. This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_operators or detect_memory_leak.

  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 does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for general RxJS linting but lacks 'when not to use' guidance. The note about heuristics and false positives provides some limitation context but is not a clear alternative recommendation.

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