Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• context_closeoutB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that synchronization is limited to files allowed by the route write policy, which is useful for safety. However, with all annotations false, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing state, or failure conditions, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.

  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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and key constraint. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

  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?

  The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, yet the description provides only minimal guidance on how to invoke it. It lacks explanations of parameter values, return behavior, or edge cases, making it insufficiently complete for such a complex tool.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only hints at the purpose of `evidence` ('evidence-backed') and `route_hint` ('route write policy'). The core parameters (project_hint, base_revision, summary, status, next_actions) are left undefined, leaving the agent to guess their exact meaning and format.

  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 states a specific action ('compress' a task into evidence-backed project state) and a resource (completed/paused/blocked tasks), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query or bootstrap. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on what 'compress' entails, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

  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 when to use the tool by specifying task statuses ('completed, paused, or blocked') and mentioning the route write policy, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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

• context_queryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning 'explicit scopes' and 'traceable source excerpts', which describe scoping behavior and result traceability. It does not contradict the annotations.

  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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action ('Search') and follows with the target and output. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose without wasted phrasing.

  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?

  With no output schema and only minimal parameter descriptions, the description provides a high-level view of the tool but lacks detailed behavioral information such as result format, handling of missing scopes, or the effect of max_chars. For a moderately complex tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a clear gap.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'scopes' parameter via 'within explicit scopes', but leaves 'query' and 'max_chars' unexplored. The search term behavior and character limit are not mentioned, making the description insufficient for parameter understanding.

  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 'Search' with a precise resource 'current personal context within explicit scopes' and specifies output 'traceable source excerpts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_bootstrap, context_closeout, and context_routes, which imply different 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 by stating it searches personal context, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use context_routes for route planning' or 'use this when scoping is needed'. Thus usage is only implied.

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

• context_bootstrapA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral nuance about how output scope changes based on project_hint and route_hint.

  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 primary action, and no unnecessary words. 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?

  Given the simple read-only tool with strong annotations and a small parameter set, the description covers essential usage logic. It could mention return format or when to prefer context_query, but it is adequate for the complexity.

  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 0%, and the description explains the semantics of project_hint and route_hint, which is helpful. However, max_chars and task are not addressed, though task is self-explanatory and max_chars has schema constraints.

  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 loads current personal context for a task with a specific verb and resource. It references project and route hints, which hints at differentiation, but doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like context_query.

  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?

  Provides clear conditional guidance: omit project_hint for common identity and rules, use route_hint for multiple task-specific routes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is well implied.

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

• context_routesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add meaningful context. It does so by specifying exactly what the tool lists (canonical project IDs, aliases, task aliases, route names), which is behaviorally useful for an agent. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

  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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the action, the output contents, and the intended usage context in a compact, readable form.

  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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and the strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what will be returned and when to call the tool, which is all an agent needs to invoke it correctly alongside sibling tools.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the schema is empty and the description cannot meaningfully elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description sufficiently clarifies that this is a simple list/discovery operation with no input requirements.

  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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: canonical project IDs, exact aliases, task aliases, and route names. It also frames the tool as a prerequisite step ('before choosing project_hint or route_hint'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_query.

  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 states when to use this tool ('before choosing project_hint or route_hint'), giving clear contextual timing. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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