Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_userC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('sends') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or effects (e.g., if updates are editable or permanent). This is inadequate for a mutation tool, leaving key behavioral traits undefined.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it appropriately concise, though it could be more structured with additional context.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values, failing to compensate for the missing structured data, which is insufficient for effective agent use.

  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 ('messageId' and 'updateContent'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'sends a follow-up update back to the platform (Slack/Discord) for a captured message,' which provides a clear verb ('sends') and resource ('update'), but it's vague about what 'captured message' means and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_boop' or 'create_beep,' leaving ambiguity in its specific role.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'captured message' but doesn't explain prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and sibling tools like 'update_boop' or 'initiate_conversation' are not referenced, offering no help in tool selection.

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

• check_listener_statusC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking 'status and connectivity', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., status codes, error messages, or configuration details when 'includeConfig' is true), which is crucial for a diagnostic tool. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient.

  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, with one parameter ('includeConfig') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Checks the status and connectivity of the HTTP listener service used for tool delegation.' It specifies the verb ('Checks') and resource ('HTTP listener service'), and mentions the specific aspect ('status and connectivity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_status', which might be ambiguous.

  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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'check_status', leaving the agent to infer usage context based on the tool name alone.

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

• initiate_conversationB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the automatic thread creation for Discord, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'conversation' (e.g., direct message vs. channel post). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase adds value, such as specifying the proactive action and platform-specific behavior for Discord, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects, response format, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these omissions in a tool that initiates conversations.

  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 thoroughly. The description does not add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the implications of optional vs. required parameters or platform-specific behaviors for parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('proactively starts a new conversation') and the target resources (Discord or Slack), with explicit differentiation for Discord's automatic thread creation. It uses precise verbs and distinguishes the tool's unique functionality from its siblings, which appear unrelated to conversation initiation.

  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 context by specifying platforms (Discord/Slack) and the proactive nature, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are directly comparable, so the lack of explicit alternatives is understandable but still leaves guidance incomplete.

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

• create_beepA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions that the tool creates a file and signals completion, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, side effects (e.g., does it modify other files?), or what happens if a boop file already exists. For a file creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place without redundancy. It's efficiently structured and easy to parse.

  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 moderate complexity (file creation with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details like error cases or return values, which would be needed for full completeness.

  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 ('directory' and 'message') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, but it doesn't need to given the high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('creates a beep file') and purpose ('to signal that work is complete and the directory is cleared for new work'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_boop' or 'end_work', which might have related functions.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when work is finished but no boop file exists'), which helps guide the agent. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the condition given is specific enough to be helpful.

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

• end_workA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: atomic operation (implies transactional safety), file system changes (removing and creating files), and signaling purpose. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects beyond clearing the directory.

  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 and concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a tool with 3 parameters and clear file operations. It covers what the tool does and why, but lacks details on return values or error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent.

  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 well. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'directory' is where files are manipulated, which is redundant with schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('removing the boop file and creating a beep file') and resource ('directory'), explaining it 'atomically completes work'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_beep' and 'update_boop' by combining both actions, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

  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 context ('signals that work is complete and clears the directory for new work'), suggesting when to use it, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives like 'create_beep' or 'update_boop' for partial operations.

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

• check_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  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 examines files, provides guidance, and can perform automatic cleanup with configurable thresholds. However, it doesn't specify what format the guidance takes, whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate limits/authentication requirements.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose ('checks the current work coordination status'), followed by implementation details ('by examining beep/boop files'), advisory function ('provides guidance on next steps'), and optional capability ('can automatically clean up stale boop files'). Every clause earns its place.

  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?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the main functionality and cleanup capability well, but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or what 'guidance on next steps' entails. Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, more detail would be beneficial.

  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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'stale boop files older than a specified threshold' which relates to the maxAgeHours parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 with specific verbs ('checks', 'examining', 'provides guidance', 'clean up') and resources ('work coordination status', 'directory', 'beep/boop files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_listener_status' by focusing on directory coordination rather than listener status, and from 'create_beep'/'update_boop' by being an inspection/cleanup tool rather than a creation/modification tool.

  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 context ('checks current work coordination status', 'provides guidance on next steps') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions automatic cleanup of stale files as a capability, but doesn't provide clear guidance on when to enable this feature versus using other cleanup tools if they exist.

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

• update_boopA
  3.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the tool's effect ('prevents other agents from working in the same directory'), which is a key behavioral trait beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and effect without any wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to understand.

  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 complexity as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete by explaining the locking mechanism. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or interaction with siblings like 'end_work', leaving room for improvement in contextual coverage.

  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 three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips, resulting in a baseline score 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('creates or updates a boop file') and resource ('to claim a directory for work'), and distinguishes its function from siblings by explaining it prevents other agents from working in the same directory, which is unique among the listed tools.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to claim a directory for work' and 'signals that work is in progress'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'end_work' or 'create_beep', which could be related.

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