Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• reindexA
  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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is incremental, local-only, and reads from a specific directory. However, it does not detail side effects, safety, or whether it can be run frequently.

  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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose.

  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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and local scope. It could mention the return or effect more explicitly, but is largely complete.

  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 parameter description 'override projects dir' is provided in the schema. The tool description adds context by noting the default path, but adds little beyond what the schema already offers.

  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 'Run' and the resource 'incremental indexing pass' with the purpose of refreshing search. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sessions, search, etc., which do not perform indexing.

  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 when search freshness is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does mention 'Local-only' as a constraint, which is helpful but insufficient.

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

• statsA
  3.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral transparency. It states the tool returns a summary, which likely is read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any potential side effects, performance implications, or access requirements.

  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 extremely concise at four words, front-loads the key information ('Index health summary'), and specifies exact metrics. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by describing the return format (e.g., JSON structure, whether it returns aggregate or per-index stats). It does not explain coverage scope or interpretation, which may be needed for effective use.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline is 4, and no additional value is required.

  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 an 'index health summary' with specific metrics: message/session counts and coverage. This is distinct from sibling tools like list_sessions (lists sessions), recent (recent items), reindex (performs reindexing), search (search query), and session (specific session operations).

  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 obtaining health statistics, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions for use or non-use. The purpose is clear, but the lack of exclusions or comparisons leaves some ambiguity.

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

• searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that results are non-authoritative leads and explains multi-source behavior (fan-out, source tagging, trust tiers, token budget). However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, error behavior, or performance characteristics, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise with three well-structured sentences. The first defines core function, the second adds a critical caveat, and the third explains advanced multi-source usage. No redundant information.

  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 complexity (10 params, multiple modes, multi-source), the description covers the key functionality and important use cases. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., snippet structure, metadata) and does not specify ordering or error handling, which would improve completeness.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'sources' fans out across backends and that 'mode' is only for single-source queries. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a higher score.

  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 searches indexed Claude Code transcripts and returns top-k matching message snippets. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_sessions, recent, reindex, session, stats) which focus on session management or indexing, not content search.

  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 provides clear context: results are leads to verify, never authoritative fact. It explains when to use the 'sources' parameter for multi-source fan-out. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

• recentA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Declares read-only behavior and describes return fields (text, session id, timestamp). Without annotations, this provides adequate behavioral context, though no mention of limits or edge cases.

  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?

  Very concise: two main sentences plus a note on read-only and return fields. No superfluous text, front-loaded with purpose.

  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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and return fields. Lacks mention of sorting details or error handling, but sufficient for typical 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 description adds minimal value. It mentions optional filtering but does not add details beyond the schema's parameter 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?

  Clearly states the tool returns most-recent messages, newest first. Distinct from sibling 'session' tool, which is for reading a specific session in order.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly tells when to use (catch up on latest activity without a search) and when to prefer an alternative (use 'session' for a specific known session).

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

• list_sessionsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description explicitly states 'Read-only; never modifies the index.' Since no annotations are provided, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It also describes the output fields.

  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 four focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value without 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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, return format, usage context with siblings, and behavioral safety. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states what is returned, making it complete.

  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 both parameters described in the input schema. The description mentions 'project' and 'limit' but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 lists the most-recent sessions newest first, and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the browse/discovery entry point, explicitly saying to use 'search' for specific content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides clear guidance: use it to discover sessions and get session_id before calling 'session' or 'recent', and prefer 'search' when looking for specific content. It also implies this is for browsing, not for direct usage.

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

• sessionA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses read-only nature, chronological order, and paging behavior. Without annotations, it adequately covers behavioral traits but could be more explicit about error handling or return format. Still strong.

  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?

  Four sentences front-loaded with main purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, paging, read-only nature.

  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?

  Complete for a simple read tool with no output schema. Covers all needed aspects: what it does, when to use, how to page, safety (read-only). No missing context.

  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?

  Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the purpose of session_id (from list_sessions/search) and the roles of limit/offset for paging. Schema already covers descriptions, but description enhances context.

  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 reads a full conversation in chronological order, specifying the verb (read), resource (conversation/session), and ordering. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning using session_id from list_sessions or search and contrasting with searching across many.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly tells when to use: after having a session_id from list_sessions or search, and wanting to read a whole session in order rather than searching across many. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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