Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• planDirectoryMoveA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool plans without modifying the filesystem and returns edit plans and file move suggestions. However, it does not explain how optional parameters (projectRoot, workspaceRoot, tsconfigPath) affect behavior or what happens in edge cases.

  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 concise sentences: first describes action and key behavior, second clarifies output and effect. 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?

  Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and non-destructive nature but omits details about return format (e.g., structure of edit plans) and when optional parameters are 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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only states the overall behavior.

  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 'plan directory move' and the resource (directory) with key behavior: recursive import updates for contained files. It distinguishes itself from siblings (planFileMove moves a single file, planRenameSymbol renames a symbol).

  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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over planFileMove or planRenameSymbol, nor any prerequisites or context.

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

• planFileMoveA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses non-destructive behavior ('without modifying the filesystem') and output type ('edit plans and file move suggestions'), but omits details like idempotency, error handling on missing paths, or whether it checks for destination conflicts. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 conveying the core function and behavior. No extraneous words; every part earns its place. Front-loaded with action and key features.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description should explain return format or structure more fully. 'Returns edit plans and file move suggestions' is vague; an agent needs to know what fields or structure to expect. Parameter details are complete via schema, but output details are insufficient for a planning 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?

  Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema, such as required file existence or path resolution details. It neither harms nor significantly improves understanding.

  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: planning file move/rename with import path updates, and explicitly distinguishes it from execution by noting it returns plans without modifying the filesystem. Sibling tools planDirectoryMove and planRenameSymbol indicate this is for individual files, providing clear differentiation.

  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 planning a move/rename without committing changes, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), or when not to use. The context of 'planning' is clear but not elaborated with conditions.

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

• planRenameSymbolA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states that the tool returns edit plans without modifying the filesystem, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens if the symbol is not found, so it is not fully transparent.

  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 with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and key behavioral trait (no filesystem modification). Every word is justified.

  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?

  With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essence but omits details like return format, error handling, or performance considerations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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% description coverage for all parameters. The description does not add meaningful extra information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets baseline but does not improve parameter understanding.

  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 computes edits to rename a TypeScript symbol at a specific position. It distinguishes from sibling tools (planDirectoryMove, planFileMove) by focusing on symbol renaming and explicitly notes it returns plans without modifying filesystem.

  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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are for different operations (directory/file moves), so confusion is unlikely. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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