Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• summarize_with_map_reduceA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the operation is resource-intensive and time-consuming, and sets a constraint on inputs, but lacks details on error behavior, side effects, or process specifics. Since no annotations are provided, this partial disclosure earns a 3.

  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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, constraint, args, returns) and is not unnecessarily verbose, though the parameter list duplicates schema names but adds necessary detail.

  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 covers the essential invocation details: purpose, parameters, return type, and a behavioral warning. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling summarization tool, and it doesn't explain the map-reduce process or potential limitations, leaving some context gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.

  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?

  The schema provides no descriptions, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (context_path, context_text, question) and adding the mutual exclusivity rule. This adds significant 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Summarizes') and resource ('document or string'), and specifies the 'map-reduce approach' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'summarize_with_sequential_notes'. This meets the criteria for a 5.

  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 provides usage context by stating exactly one of context_path or context_text must be provided and warns about resource intensiveness, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'summarize_with_sequential_notes' or state when this approach is preferred. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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

• glanceA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 the read-only nature via 'quick look', the mutual-exclusivity constraint, and the return format ('string containing a snippet of the file/text and metadata'). However, 'metadata' is vague and no error handling or permission details are mentioned, preventing a higher score.

  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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, then constraints, then argument definitions, then return value. It is mostly concise, but it redundantly states the mutual-exclusivity twice ('Exactly one...' and 'Do NOT provide both'), and 'first few thousands' is awkward phrasing. Minor issues, but overall efficient.

  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 simple tool with no output schema, the description explains the main behavior and return value. However, it leaves gaps: 'metadata' is unspecified beyond the earlier mention of line count, the exact character limit is vague ('few thousands'), and error scenarios (e.g., nonexistent file) are not addressed. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines context_path as 'the path to the file to glance at' and context_text as 'the text content to glance at', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It also explicitly states the critical mutual-exclusivity requirement, which the schema does not convey since both fields have defaults and are optional.

  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 a specific action: 'Provides a quick look at the beginning of a file or a string, showing the first few thousands characters and total line count.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like summarize, search, and retrieve by emphasizing a lightweight, read-only preview. The verb 'glance' is apt, and the resource (file/text) is explicit.

  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 is provided. The phrase 'quick look' implies a lightweight preview use case, but there are no clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The description does explain the parameter constraint ('Exactly one of context_path or context_text must be provided'), but this is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance.

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

• retrieve_with_ragA
  4/5.0
  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 that the tool performs a read-only retrieval operation and enforces a mutual-exclusion rule for context inputs. However, it does not mention potential side effects, limitations of RAG, or what 'relevant' means. It is adequately transparent for a simple retrieval tool but lacks depth.

  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 compact and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, one sentence for the key constraint, then clean Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

  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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information for invocation: purpose, parameters, constraint, and return type. It does not explain RAG concepts or alternative use cases, but it is functionally complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

  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?

  Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: context_path ('path to the context file'), context_text ('text content to search'), and query ('query to search for'). It also clarifies the exclusivity rule. However, it does not explicitly state whether query is required or optional, leaving slight ambiguity.

  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 with a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('relevant passages from a document or string'), and a mechanism ('using RAG'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like summarize_with_map_reduce and search_with_regex, which serve different purposes.

  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 includes a crucial usage constraint ('Exactly one of context_path or context_text must be provided. Do NOT provide both.'), but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the description's clarity about what it does, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

• search_with_regexA
  4.3/5.0
  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 the exclusivity constraint and the return type, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens if both inputs are provided, and error behaviors are undocumented.

  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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a constraint, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. No redundant fluff—every element contributes to understanding or correct usage.

  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?

  The description covers the core purpose, all parameters, the exclusivity constraint, and the return type, which is sufficient for a straightforward regex search tool. It lacks only minor edge-case behavior like error handling and exact snippet formatting, but these are not essential for basic use.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with clear meanings, including the default for case_sensitive. It also specifies the mutual exclusivity of context_path and context_text, which is critical for correct invocation.

  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 a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('a document for a regex pattern'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that summarize or retrieve via RAG. It unambiguously conveys the tool's function.

  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 clearly states the tool is for regex searching, which distinguishes it from summarization and RAG siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides strong parameter-level guidance ('Exactly one of context_path or context_text must be provided') but lacks tool-level exclusion criteria.

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

• summarize_with_sequential_notesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It openly states the operation is 'resource-intensive' and 'time-consuming', and that it reads 'sequentially', which are useful behavioral traits beyond the simple action. It does not list side effects, but none are apparent for a note-taking tool.

  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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a constraint note, a performance warning, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides necessary information with 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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameters, return type, and performance characteristics. It could better address relative usage against siblings, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It lists all three arguments with brief meanings (context_path as file path, context_text as text content, question as goal) and clarifies the critical mutual exclusivity constraint. This goes well beyond the bare 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 the tool reads a document or string sequentially to synthesize query-aware notes. The use of 'sequentially' distinguishes it from the sibling 'summarize_with_map_reduce', making its specific purpose clear.

  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 gives explicit constraints on parameter usage ('Exactly one of context_path or context_text must be provided. Do NOT provide both.') and a warning about resource intensity. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when to prefer this over them, so it misses the highest level of guidance.

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