Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_codeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the search algorithm (BM25-style), output structure (compact evidence packet), and dependency on a pre-built index. It does not discuss failure modes or idempotency, but for a code search tool this level of detail is adequate.

  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 the core action and output description. Every part is essential, with zero filler or 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 output schema, the description explains the return format (compact evidence packet). It addresses the key prerequisite (index_repo). Missing details about side effects or read-only nature, but overall sufficient for a search tool with three parameters.

  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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by mentioning 'BM25-style keyword score' which hints at how the query parameter is used, but it does not elaborate on 'root' or 'topK' beyond schema definitions.

  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 action: searching a code chunk index using BM25-style keyword scoring. It specifies the return format (compact evidence packet with FILE/LINES/SCORE + snippet) and distinguishes itself from siblings like index_repo (precondition) and read_snippet (full file retrieval).

  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 explicitly advises to call index_repo first if no index exists, providing a clear prerequisite. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the context from sibling tools and the description's focus on searching versus reading or testing implies appropriate usage.

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

• read_snippetA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses the 300-line cap and that it reads from a file inside root. No annotations, so description carries full burden; could mention read-only nature or return format but fairly transparent.

  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, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose then usage. Every word earns its place.

  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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and limitations. Could mention return type but not critical.

  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 baseline 3. Description adds the line cap but repeats 'line range' which is already in schema. Minimal added value beyond schema fields.

  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 it reads a specific line range from a single file inside root, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing search_code for narrowing down locations.

  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 says to use only after search_code narrows a location and when more context is needed, providing a clear condition and alternative.

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

• run_test_filteredA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses key behaviors: no arbitrary shell, filtered output based on specific patterns, tail-capped at 120 lines with fallback to 80 raw lines. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

  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 is comprehensive but somewhat long. It front-loads the core purpose and includes all necessary details, though it could be slightly more concise.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers input constraints and output behavior, including matching patterns and fallback logic, 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. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 runs test commands from a fixed allowlist, not arbitrary shell commands, and returns filtered failure-relevant output. It distinguishes from sibling tools (index_repo, search_code, read_snippet) which have 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage for running tests and getting filtered output. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the tool's specific purpose.

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

• index_repoA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description transparently states the tool creates a file at a known path and is read-only in nature (scanning). It lacks details on permissions or safety, but the core behavior is clear.

  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: first states action and output, second gives usage context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key purpose.

  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?

  For a simple index-building tool with one required param and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, where output goes, and when to run it.

  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% with a single parameter 'root' described as 'Absolute path to the repository root.' The description adds value by showing the output path relative to root, exceeding schema info.

  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 'Scan a repository and build a lightweight chunk index' with a specific output location. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_code by being a prerequisite indexing step.

  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 advises 'Run this once before search_code (and re-run after significant code changes),' providing clear when-to-use and maintenance guidance.

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