Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• helloA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a greeting, implying read-only non-destructive behavior, but does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose any 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Extremely concise—a single short sentence in two languages. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the low complexity of a health check endpoint, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline 4 applies.

  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 returns a greeting for health check, with both Korean and English. It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_repo_map and refresh_cache.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but given its trivial health check nature, it's inherently a test endpoint. Siblings serve different purposes, reducing confusion.

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

• refresh_cacheA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description discloses behavioral traits: incremental mode only re-parses changes, full mode discards and rebuilds cache. It also describes the return values. However, it does not mention potential side effects beyond cache modification.

  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 succinct and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by explanations of each mode and the return format. The bilingual text adds redundancy but remains clear and front-loaded.

  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 tool's simplicity, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and return values adequately. It lacks examples or error conditions but is reasonably complete for its complexity.

  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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for the 'full' parameter (explaining its default and the two modes), but does not explain 'repo_path' beyond its name. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

  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 refreshes the cache, with two distinct modes: incremental (default) and full rebuild (recovery). It specifies the operation on a cache resource and, given the context of sibling tools (get_repo_map, hello), it is clearly differentiated from them.

  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 explains when to use full=True (recovery) and full=False (default, incremental). It provides clear guidance on the two modes, though it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use the tool.

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

• get_repo_mapA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure with stats and warnings, caching behavior, role-specific behavior, and indicates it is read-only (compressed map). Could mention non-destructiveness more explicitly.

  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 structured with bullet points and front-loads the main purpose. However, it mixes Korean and English and is somewhat verbose; could be more succinct while retaining clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema exists, but the description adequately specifies the return structure (repo_map, stats with fields, warnings) and covers caching and role-specific behavior. Given the complexity (5 params, role logic), it is complete.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully. Every parameter (repo_path, token_budget, focus_files, role, changed_files) is explained with detailed role-based behavior, adding meaning 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 clearly states 'retourne une carte compressée du dépôt' with specific verb and resource, and explains the role-based behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools `hello` and `refresh_cache` which are unrelated, making the 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for getting a repo map but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, e.g., for simple file retrieval.

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