Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• reindex_memoryC
  2.4/5.0
  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. It does not disclose whether rebuilding is destructive, safe to run concurrently, or requires any permissions. The agent gets no information about side effects or operational impacts.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded with the verb, but every word is earned. A slightly longer description would improve value without sacrificing conciseness.

  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 tool has an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks explanation of the 'force' parameter and does not provide enough context for a maintenance operation that could be impactful. The description is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has one parameter, 'force', with a boolean type and default false, but the description does not mention it or explain its semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter name.

  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 'Rebuild local memory indexes' clearly states the verb (rebuild) and the resource (local memory indexes). It distinguishes from siblings like read_memory or search_memory because rebuilding is a maintenance operation. However, it lacks detail on what indexes specifically are being rebuilt or why.

  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 memory_hygiene. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow. An agent would have no context for selecting it.

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

• write_memoryC
  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 must bear full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or what happens on update (e.g., partial vs full replacement). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is concise (one sentence) but sacrifices necessary detail. It captures the essence but leaves the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

  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 (nested object, optional update_id, and output schema not shown), the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on how to construct the record input and how updates work, making it incomplete for reliable usage.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It does not clarify what fields the 'record' object should contain, nor the purpose of 'update_id' (e.g., to specify which record to update).

  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 'Create or update' and the resource 'Markdown memory record', distinguishing it from siblings like read_memory, search_memory, etc.

  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 the tool is for writing memory records but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, or when to create vs update. The update_id parameter hints at update logic, but it's not explained.

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

• memory_hygieneB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the word 'report'.

  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 concise sentence, but it could benefit from additional context without being verbose.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits details about the parameter's role and what the output contains.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The sole parameter 'stale_days' lacks any description in the schema or in the tool description, which does not add meaning beyond the name and default value.

  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 reports memory hygiene issues like stale candidates and duplicates, distinguishing it from siblings that read, reindex, search, or write memory.

  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 checking hygiene issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

• search_memoryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that diagnostics=true adds per-stage timing fields, but it does not state that the operation is read-only (non-destructive), nor does it explain the behavior of filters like type or project, or how results are ordered. The information is partially transparent but lacks full disclosure of expected behavior.

  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: two sentences plus a usage tip. It front-loads the purpose and then provides parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the main use case and key parameters. It explains query modes, status filters, and diagnostics. However, it does not explain the 'type' and 'project' parameters, nor does it state that the operation is read-only. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but some behavioral gaps remain.

  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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for several parameters: it explains that 'query' is required, 'mode' defaults to hybrid, 'limit' defaults to 5, 'status' can be comma-separated, and 'diagnostics' triggers timing fields. However, it omits explanations for 'type' and 'project' parameters, meaning some parameters remain underspecified.

  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 purpose: 'Search local Codex memory with keyword, semantic, or hybrid retrieval.' It specifies the verb (search), the resource (local Codex memory), and the retrieval modes, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like read_memory (single retrieval) or write_memory (writing).

  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 useful tips for usage, such as using comma-separated status values and enabling diagnostics for troubleshooting. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_memory or memory_hygiene, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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

• read_memoryA
  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 the burden. It states it reads a record, implying read-only behavior. No additional behavioral traits (side effects, auth needs) are disclosed, but for a simple read operation this 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?

  Single sentence, zero waste, front-loads action and resource.

  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?

  The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. Description is sufficient for a read operation; return values are covered by output schema.

  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 has 0% description coverage; description partially compensates by stating 'by id or path', adding meaning that the parameter can be either an id or a path. However, it lacks format or examples, so it does not fully compensate.

  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?

  Description uses verb 'Read' and specifies resource 'local memory record' with retrieval method 'by id or path'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_memory' (searching) and 'write_memory' (writing).

  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?

  Description implies when to use (retrieve a memory record) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, given sibling tool names, context is clear.

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