Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• forgetC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Description only says 'deletes' without detailing consequences, reversibility, or authorization needs. Annotations lack readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so the description carries the burden, which it does not meet. No mention of what happens if id is omitted or scope-based behavior.

  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?

  Description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could be more concise (e.g., 'Deletes a memory by id.') but is acceptable.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values are managed. However, for a destructive tool, details on prerequisites (e.g., ownership, scope implications) are missing, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

  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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the notion of 'using the provided id' but doesn't clarify the optionality or relation to scope, so it adds little beyond the schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states deletion of a memory using an id, distinguishing it from siblings recall (read), remember (create/update), and update (modify). However, it mentions 'using the provided id' while id is optional in the schema, which could cause slight confusion.

  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 guidance on when to use forget versus siblings recall, remember, or update. The description assumes the agent knows the context, but fails to provide usage scenarios or exclusions.

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

• rememberC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations are minimal (title only), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'stores in the database', implying a write operation, but does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. Compared to the calibration example for 'update_drive' (score 2), this is similar in lacking 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks any structural organization, such as separating purpose from usage notes, which could improve scannability.

  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 that there are three required parameters and the tool is a write operation, the description is incomplete. It does not provide any guidance on scope naming conventions, content length limits, or example usage. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is not needed, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves gaps for the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a vague mention of 'using the provided scope' without elaborating on the 'scope' parameter's role. It does not clarify the 'source' parameter's purpose or format beyond the schema. Thus, it adds marginal value beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

  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 stores a new memory in the database using the provided scope. It uses a specific verb ('stores') and resource ('memory'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'forget', 'recall', or 'update', which could cause confusion over which tool to use for memory operations.

  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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that one should use 'update' for modifying existing memories or 'forget' for removal. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• updateB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description only mentions updating with an id, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or behavior when id is missing. Annotations provide no safety hints, making transparency weak.

  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 concise sentence, well-structured and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative but avoids unnecessary text.

  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 has an output schema and four parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not address the optionality of id or the update behavior without id, leaving ambiguity.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates 'using the provided id' which is already in the id parameter description.

  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 updates an existing memory, distinguishing it from siblings (forget, recall, remember). However, it implies id is the identifier but the schema does not require id, causing slight confusion.

  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 use for updating existing memories, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Usage context is derived from the tool name and siblings.

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

• recallA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations for readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('retrieves'), but lacks details on error handling, empty results, or performance implications. The description is minimally adequate.

  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-formed sentence that directly states the tool's action and data source. No extraneous words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 simple parameter set (1 param, 100% coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior. It could be more complete by hinting at return format, but for a retrieval tool it is 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?

  The schema covers the 'scope' parameter with 100% description, but the tool description adds semantic value by explaining that scope can combine user, application, and contextual IDs. This 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 'retrieves' and the resource 'memories', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'forget', 'remember', and 'update' that perform other operations.

  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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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