Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• forgetC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the need for the delete capability, but it fails to warn that deletion is irreversible or explain what happens to associated memories. The selection semantics (entities vs. memory_id) are also absent, leaving the agent unaware of potential side effects.

  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, tight sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action, though it omits necessary details that would make it complete. The brevity is appropriate, but the lack of parameter context keeps it from being a 5.

  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?

  This destructive tool has two optional parameters and no required fields, meaning it could delete a broad or narrow set of memories depending on input. The description should explain how entities and memory_id interact, but it doesn't. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the selection semantics and irreversibility are gaps that make the description incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It merely says "selected memories" without explaining that the entities array or memory_id parameter determines what gets deleted. This leaves both parameters completely ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 (delete) and the resource (selected memories), which distinguishes it from siblings like store, retrieve, and search. However, "selected" is vague and doesn't specify how selection occurs, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact scope.

  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 like retrieve or search. It only notes a permission requirement (the delete capability), which is operational rather than usage context, so the agent gets no hints about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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

• searchC
  2.7/5.0
  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. It discloses a key behavioral trait by requiring the read capability, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on search semantics (e.g., fuzzy vs. exact) or potential side effects, leaving gaps.

  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 that front-loads the core action and includes a useful prerequisite. It wastes no words, though its briefness borders on under-specification.

  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?

  The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It doesn't explain when to use search vs. retrieve, how the query/limit/entities parameters affect results, or any behavioral nuances. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return-value explanation, but other context is lacking.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of the parameters (query, limit, entities). It provides zero added meaning beyond the schema's structural definitions, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

  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 states the tool's action ('Search') and resource ('memories'), making its purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'retrieve', but the verb 'search' implies query-based lookup, which subtly distinguishes it.

  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 the sibling tools (store, retrieve, forget). It only mentions a prerequisite ('requires the read capability'), which is not usage direction.

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

• storeB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does disclose two behaviors: encryption and the need for write capability. However, it omits other crucial behaviors such as whether storing overwrites existing memories, how memory_id is used, or return value expectations, leaving notable gaps.

  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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary purpose.

  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?

  For a tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to mention behavior on existing memory_id, the meaning of metadata or event_timestamp, or any return value details. The lack of annotations further reduces context, leaving the description incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the five parameters. While parameter names (e.g., content, metadata) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify semantics like the role of memory_id, event_timestamp, or source. It does not compensate for the low coverage at all.

  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 function: encrypting and storing a memory. The verb 'store' is specific, and 'memory' identifies the resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (retrieve, search, forget) which handle reading and deletion.

  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. The only extra note, 'requires the write capability,' is a permission prerequisite, not usage context. There are no explicit statements about when to choose this over retrieve, search, or forget.

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

• retrieveB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: it requires read permission and rejects ambiguous selectors. However, it doesn't state whether it is read-only, how it handles missing memories, or anything about pagination or return format beyond the ambiguous mention of selectors.

  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 exceptionally concise at just 9 words, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It conveys purpose, a key requirement, and a behavioral constraint without waste.

  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?

  For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details like non-mutating status or error handling. The existence of an output schema helps with return values, but there are significant gaps in context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter-specific meaning. It vaguely refers to 'selectors' but doesn't clarify that memory_id and entities are the selectors, and it says nothing about limit or newest_first. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve memories') and hints at a distinct behavior ('rejects ambiguous selectors'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which also retrieves memories, so sibling differentiation is weak.

  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 phrase 'rejects ambiguous selectors' implies this tool is for direct, unambiguous retrieval when you have exact memory IDs or entities, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over 'search' or provide alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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