Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• context_gcA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool clears cached file skeletons and frees context window space, and mentions the effect of different strategies. It does not warn of any destructive side effects, but the described action is a non-destructive cleanup of 'no longer needed' items.

  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 long: the first states what it does, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and concise, with no superfluous information.

  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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and usage, but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status). Given the complexity, this is a minor gap.

  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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including enum values and defaults. The description does not add significant new information beyond what is already in the schema, so a 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 'Trigger context garbage collection' with the specific verb 'trigger' and resource 'context garbage collection'. It further explains it clears cached file skeletons to free context window space, which is distinct from sibling tools like parse_error_log or read_code_skeleton.

  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 explicitly tells when to use: 'when you notice context is getting full or after completing a task branch.' It doesn't cover when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient give the tool's specific purpose.

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

• parse_error_logA
  4.2/5.0
  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 discloses key behaviors: filters out node_modules frames, keeps only source code references, and compresses to save tokens. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects, which is appropriate for a parsing tool. However, it could be more explicit about the output format.

  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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language. It is efficient and easily parseable by an AI agent.

  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 (parsing logs) and the fact that the schema covers all parameters, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the filtering behavior and token savings. The output format is not described, but it's implied to be a compressed version of the input. No output schema exists, so the description could briefly mention the output structure.

  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 adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema; it reinforces the purpose of filtering and compressing but doesn't provide additional detail about parameter constraints or usage nuances.

  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 parses and compresses error logs/stack traces, with the specific verb 'Parses and compresses' and resource 'error logs / stack traces'. It distinguishes itself by mentioning it filters out node_modules and keeps only source code references, which sets it apart from reading raw stderr.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of reading raw stderr output to save 90%+ tokens', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no further differentiation is necessary.

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

• read_function_bodyA
  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 must convey behavior. It explains the return scope (only the requested function body) and mentions the includeContext parameter. Missing disclosure of error handling or performance, but the core behavior is clear.

  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, no redundant words. First sentence states purpose, second sentence gives usage guidance. Highly efficient.

  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?

  All parameters are documented in schema and description. The description clarifies the return value (function body) despite missing output schema. Adequate for the complexity of the tool.

  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 additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters.

  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 uses specific verb 'expands' and identifies the resource 'function body'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'read_code_skeleton' by stating it returns only the function body, not the entire file.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs to use this tool AFTER read_code_skeleton when needing a specific function's logic. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it is for focused detail rather than broad file reading.

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

• read_code_skeletonA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description fully discloses that internal logic is replaced with comments, saving tokens. No destructive behavior or contradictions; description carries the burden well.

  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?

  Three short sentences: first defines action, second states when to use, third guides next step. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

  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 no output schema, description explains what output looks like (structural skeleton with omitted internals). Parameters are well-documented in schema; tool's purpose is fully covered.

  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 baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter details beyond what schema provides. The focus parameters are explained in schema adequately.

  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 reads source code and returns structural skeleton only, specifying included and omitted parts. It distinguishes from sibling 'read_function_body' by noting it can expand specific functions.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use this tool FIRST when exploring files larger than 100 lines to save 70-90% context tokens' and directs to use 'read_function_body' after reviewing. Provides context and alternatives.

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