Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• usageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 the behavioral trait of retrieving documentation, which is a read-only operation, but does not add context beyond that, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks richer operational details.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Retrieves the Jinni usage documentation') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to understand quickly.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool does, and since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning the output format or usage context.

  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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter information and focuses on the tool's purpose.

  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 specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('Jinni usage documentation (content of README.md)'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'read_context' which likely serves a different purpose. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 by specifying what is retrieved, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks context about scenarios where this tool is preferred over the sibling 'read_context', leaving usage decisions to inference.

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

• read_contextA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns a 'static view' (implying read-only, non-destructive), uses 'sensible default exclusions' when rules=[], and provides guidance on default behavior and targeting efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality, but it contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating that targets and rules accept JSON arrays) and includes implementation details like 'You can ignore the other arguments by default' that could be streamlined. The 'Guidance for AI Model Usage' section is helpful but adds length. Overall, it's informative but could be more concise.

  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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 57% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics for key inputs, and behavioral context. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, it lacks details on less critical parameters like 'debug_explain' and 'size_limit_mb', and doesn't mention error cases or performance implications.

  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 description coverage is 57%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that 'targets' and 'rules' accept JSON arrays, clarifies that empty rules ([]) use sensible defaults, provides examples of default exclusions, and gives practical guidance on when to use specific targets versus processing the entire root. However, it doesn't fully explain all 7 parameters, particularly 'debug_explain' and 'size_limit_mb'.

  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: 'Reads context from a specified project root directory' and 'Returns a static view of files with paths relative to the project root.' It specifies the verb (read), resource (context/files), and scope (project root directory), distinguishing it from the sibling 'usage' tool which provides documentation rather than file reading.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Assume the user wants to read in context for the whole project unless otherwise specified' and 'If the user just says 'jinni', interpret that as read_context.' It also specifies when to use the list_only argument: 'If the user asks to list context, use the list_only argument.' This gives clear usage rules and context for invocation.

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