Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• audit_circuitA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses return values (findings, summary, score, ZKWC tags) but does not confirm read-only behavior or mention side effects, auth needs, or limits. Adequate for a non-destructive audit tool, but not explicit.

  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, directly conveying purpose and output without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by return structure. No redundancy.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (structured findings, summary, score, ZKWC ids). For a tool with two parameters, this covers the essentials, though noting whether the audit is read-only would add clarity.

  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 the description adds little beyond schema. It restates the supported languages, which are already in the enum, and does not detail format or constraints beyond 'full circuit source code'. Meets baseline but doesn't elevate.

  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 audits ZK circuits for soundness and constraint bugs, specifying supported languages (Circom, Noir, Halo2). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_constraint (specific check) and explain_circuit (explanation), as the verb 'audit' and scope are unique.

  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 the tool is for comprehensive audits but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_constraint or explain_circuit. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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

• suggest_constraintsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the output format (code snippets with IDs) and the action (proposing constraints), but misses any mention of safety (e.g., read-only behavior) or side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

  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 that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the output. No extraneous words, making it highly efficient for 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?

  For a tool with only two parameters (both well-documented in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and what it returns. It lacks details on complexity or edge cases, but is sufficient for basic 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 proposes minimal additional constraints to ensure circuit soundness, returning code snippets with ZK Weakness Classification IDs. It uses a specific verb ('propose') and resource ('constraints'), and is distinct from siblings like audit_circuit and explain_circuit.

  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 when to use (to make a circuit sound) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Context from sibling tool names gives some guidance, but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

• check_constraintA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (verdict, explanation, findings) but does not mention if the operation is read-only, side effects, or prerequisites.

  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 with front-loaded action and example. Every sentence adds value without waste.

  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?

  For a tool with 2 simple required params, the description covers purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately. Lacks mention of circuit domain explicitly, but 'source' implies it.

  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 has 100% parameter descriptions; the description adds value by providing an example concern ('is the output `out` fully constrained?'), illustrating usage beyond schema.

  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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('a single reviewer's concern'), with an example and expected outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_circuit (broader) and suggest_constraints (generation).

  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 implies use for targeted concerns (e.g., 'single reviewer's concern'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

• explain_circuitA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output in detail (plain-English explanation, signal map) and implicitly indicates a non-destructive, analytical operation. However, it could mention that it does not execute or modify the circuit.

  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?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (plain-English explanation) and its components (signals, constraint map). It covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, though it could hint at the output's structure (e.g., text format).

  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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by noting that the 'lang' parameter is optional and auto-detected, which goes beyond the schema's 'If omitted' note. This contextual detail helps the agent decide on parameter usage.

  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 provides a 'Plain-English explanation of a ZK circuit' and lists specific outputs (what it proves, signals, constraint map). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'audit_circuit' (security audit) and 'suggest_constraints' (adding constraints), making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 mentions it is 'useful for onboarding reviewers', providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context of 'onboarding' implies it is for understanding rather than debugging or auditing, which are covered by sibling tools.

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