Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• everything_searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the search behavior and syntax but lacks explicit statements about read-only nature, prerequisites (e.g., Everything service must be running), latency, or results format. This is adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

  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 structured with bullet points and examples, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose and then logically organizes syntax details. While lengthy, every part serves to clarify usage, so it earns conciseness within its informative role.

  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?

  The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., what fields are returned, pagination details), nor does it mention behavior when no results are found or error conditions. This is a significant gap for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

  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%, providing baseline descriptions for all parameters. The description significantly enhances the 'query' parameter by listing many syntax options and examples beyond the schema's short description. Other parameters (maxResults, offset, etc.) are not further elaborated, but the query coverage adds substantial value.

  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 'Search for files and folders on Windows using Everything.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (files/folders via Everything). The sibling tools (everything_file_info, everything_status, everything_version) indicate distinct purposes, making this tool's role unambiguous.

  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 extensive search syntax and examples, implying this is the primary search tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., everything_file_info for file details) make the context clear. No exclusions are given, but the purpose differentiation is effective.

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

• everything_file_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' indicates a read operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, required permissions, or behavior on non-existent paths. The mention of 'using Everything' hints at a dependency, but more transparency would be helpful.

  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 front-loads the verb and resource, making it efficient and direct. Every word adds value.

  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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (Windows attributes, run count). It could mention error handling or prerequisites for completeness, but it is largely sufficient.

  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% with the 'path' parameter having a description. The description adds context by specifying that the path is for a file or folder and that the tool retrieves Windows attributes and run count, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

  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 'Get' and the resource 'file attributes (Windows attributes, run count)', and specifies the tool uses Everything. This distinguishes it from siblings like everything_search (which searches) and everything_status (which checks service status).

  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 when needing file attributes for a specific path, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like everything_search or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• everything_statusA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the action (check status) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or response nature. For a simple read-only check, basic transparency is acceptable but not exemplary.

  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?

  Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose.

  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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple nature, description completely covers what the tool does. No additional context needed.

  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?

  No parameters defined, so baseline 4 applies. Description correct adds no parameter info, which 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Check' and resource 'Everything search engine status'. Differentiates from sibling tools which handle file info, search queries, and version info.

  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?

  Implies usage for checking if service is running/database loaded, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor alternatives.

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

• everything_versionA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description is straightforward: it gets version info. No hidden side effects, but could mention if it requires a running instance or other constraints.

  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?

  Single sentence, directly to the point, no unnecessary words.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate. It could specify the return format (e.g., version string) for completeness, but not essential.

  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?

  No parameters defined; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies since description adds no parameter detail, but none needed.

  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 it retrieves version information of the Everything search engine. Distinct from sibling tools which handle file info, search, or status.

  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?

  Implies use when version info is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives.

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