Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• stream_large_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns multiple chunks but omits details such as response format, error behavior, or whether it is a read operation. More behavioral context is needed for safe invocation.

  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 succinct, front-loaded sentences. No wasted words. The core action and purpose are immediately clear.

  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?

  Despite good conciseness, the description lacks completeness given the tool's complexity. It does not explain how chunks are delivered (e.g., response structure, pagination) or how to process them. The absence of an output schema further burdens the description to provide this context.

  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% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that chunks are returned. No parameter descriptions are enhanced.

  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 streams a large file in chunks for efficient processing. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'read_large_file_chunk', which likely serves a similar purpose.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_large_file_chunk'. The description implies use for large files requiring multiple chunks, but there is no explicit when-not or mention of alternative scenarios.

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

• get_file_structureB
  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 bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what metadata is returned but does not disclose whether the tool reads the entire file, any size limits, side effects, or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely processes file contents.

  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 that packs in the purpose and key outputs. It is concise and front-loaded, but slightly dense; could be split for readability. 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 the moderate complexity, no output schema, and siblings, the description lists key return values but lacks context on prerequisites (file existence, access) and how it relates to sibling tools. It is 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 single parameter 'filePath' is described as 'Absolute path to the file' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'analyze' and 'get' with the resource 'file structure' and lists specific metadata types (line statistics, recommended chunk size, samples). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_summary which likely provides a summary, or read_large_file_chunk which reads content.

  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 analyzing file structure but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_large_file_chunk or search_in_large_file. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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

• search_in_large_fileA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 search features but does not disclose side effects, performance implications, or whether the tool is read-only. There is no contradiction.

  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, front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., lines with context). It does not. Also, it does not mention that filePath must be absolute. The description is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for full understanding.

  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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating schema information (e.g., 'supports regex'). Does not significantly compensate for low coverage (not applicable).

  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 it searches for a pattern in a large file with context lines, and explicitly mentions regex and case-sensitive search. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_large_file_chunk and stream_large_file.

  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 pattern searching but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_file_summaryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns line stats, character stats, and word count, but does not mention performance, limitations, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word adds value—no redundancy or fluff.

  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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides basic context about the output. However, it does not specify return format or whether additional stats may be included, leaving some gaps.

  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% for the single parameter filePath, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema description of the parameter.

  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 gets a comprehensive statistical summary of a file, listing specific stats (line, character, word count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_structure or read_large_file_chunk.

  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 (for file stats) but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives. While sibling names suggest different use cases, no direct guidance is provided.

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

• navigate_to_lineA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description covers basic behavior but omits details on error handling (e.g., out-of-bounds line numbers) or performance implications for large files.

  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 provide all essential information without redundancy, earning their 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?

  The description does not specify the output format (e.g., what is returned) nor behavior for invalid inputs, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

  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%, and the description adds only contextual reinforcement without new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

  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 navigates to a specific line, provides context lines, and highlights the target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_large_file_chunk.

  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 it (navigate to a line) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives like search_in_large_file.

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

• read_large_file_chunkA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'intelligent chunking' and 'optimal chunk size' but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or how 'file type' influences chunking, leaving significant 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?

  Two sentences with no extraneous text, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Every sentence is valuable and compact.

  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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is decent but lacks details on return format, error cases, and how 'file type' detection works, which are important for correct usage.

  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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that linesPerChunk is optional and auto-detected, and chunkIndex is zero-based, providing context beyond the 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 uses clear verb 'Read' and resource 'specific chunk of a large file', and highlights intelligent chunking behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like stream_large_file and search_in_large_file.

  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 reading specific chunks but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stream_large_file or search_in_large_file, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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