Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_codeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'analyzes code files and provides statistics,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what types of statistics, whether it's resource-intensive, if it handles errors gracefully, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

  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: 'Analyzes code files and provides statistics.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 the complexity of a code analysis tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool invocation is insufficient, especially for a tool that likely produces varied statistical results.

  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 the schema already documents all four parameters (path, language, countLines, countFunctions) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage notes. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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's purpose: 'Analyzes code files and provides statistics.' This specifies the verb ('analyzes') and resource ('code files') with the outcome ('provides statistics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_file_tree' (which lists files) and 'merge_content' (which combines content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the general domain of code analysis.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• get_file_treeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 disclosure. It states 'Retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large directories, or what the output format looks like (e.g., tree structure details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 the complexity of a file tree retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., hierarchical structure), potential limitations (e.g., depth or size constraints), or how parameters interact (e.g., combining gitignore and custom blacklist). Without annotations, this leaves the agent under-informed for effective 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'path', 'use_gitignore', 'ignore_git', and 'custom_blacklist' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'project' context, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'file tree structure of the project', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_code' or 'merge_content', which might also involve file operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_code' or 'merge_content'. It lacks context about scenarios where retrieving a file tree is appropriate, such as for navigation or analysis, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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

• merge_contentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 disclosure. It states the basic operation but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify file formats supported, output location or naming, whether merging is destructive to source files, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 8 parameters and file system operations, this leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

  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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Merges content from multiple files into a single output file') and contains no redundant or verbose phrasing. Every word serves a clear purpose in conveying the tool's function.

  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?

  For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: what happens to source files after merging, supported file types, output format/location, error conditions, or performance implications. The agent would need to infer or test these behavioral aspects, creating uncertainty in tool selection and invocation.

  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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general concept of merging files. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'compress', 'use_gitignore', or 'custom_blacklist' affect the merge operation, leaving the schema to carry the full parameter documentation burden.

  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 verb ('merges') and resource ('content from multiple files'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_code' and 'get_file_tree' by focusing on file combination rather than analysis or structure retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar merge tools that might exist elsewhere.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools ('analyze_code', 'get_file_tree') or suggest scenarios where merging files is appropriate versus other operations. There's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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