Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• resharper_inspectA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the minimal description is consistent and does not add contradictory claims. The phrase 'static analysis' is aligned with read-only behavior but adds little beyond annotations. No mention of performance, report-side effects in the tool description itself, though parameter descriptions do disclose file output and pruning 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, target, and outcome immediately. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

  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?

  Although there is no output schema, the parameter descriptions compensate by explaining response behavior: detail caps the listing, report writes a file with findings, and the response carries a summary. Combined with annotations and detailed schemas, an agent has almost everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is a precise description of the return object structure, but the information provided is sufficient for most call decisions.

  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 baseline is 3. The tool description itself contains no parameter information, but the input schema thoroughly documents each parameter with examples, edge cases (e.g., files not belonging to a project), enum meanings, and interactions between detail, report, and severity. The description does not need to compensate, so a 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?

  Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run ReSharper static analysis on the solution and return the code issues it finds.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like resharper_cleanup (which would modify code) and resharper_reset_cache (which would manage caches). The scope ('on the solution') and output ('code issues') are unambiguous.

  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 resharper_cleanup or resharper_reset_cache. It does not mention 'use when you want to review issues without modifying code' or any exclusion criteria. The agent must infer intent from the sibling names and the word 'inspect', which is not enough for a clear routing decision.

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

• resharper_cleanupA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the 'in place' phrase in the description confirms the mutating nature rather than introducing new information. The description does not contradict the annotations and adds a small amount of context, but it does not disclose side effects like overwriting formatting or requiring a backup.

  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 one short, direct sentence that names the action, target, and in-place mutating effect. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundant rephrasing.

  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 schema handles the complex path-matching and profile-default semantics, and annotations cover the unsafe/idempotent behavior. The only missing piece is a description of return values or post-condition reporting, but no output schema exists and this is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

  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%, and the property descriptions are rich: files explains path matching, wildcards, splitting, and failure behavior, while profile explains defaults. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for an already fully documented 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 pairs a specific verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('ReSharper code cleanup') and states the observable effect ('reformat and normalize files in place'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings: cleanup modifies formatting, whereas resharper_inspect analyzes issues and resharper_reset_cache manages the cache.

  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 frames the tool as the choice for reformatting and normalizing files in place, which gives an agent usable context for selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the behavior is distinct enough from the sibling tools that the usage intent is unambiguous.

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

• resharper_reset_cacheA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool destructive, and the description adds what exactly gets destroyed (the ReSharper analysis cache) and the behavioral consequence: the next inspect or cleanup call will rebuild from cold. It also explains the stale-index failure mode, giving the agent a clear mental model beyond the annotation flags.

  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 three sentences with no wasted words: it states the action, explains the diagnostic trigger, and flags the cost. The most important operational fact (delete cache) is front-loaded, and the maintenance warning is placed last where it can temper misuse.

  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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is deleted, why an agent might want to call it, what the next invocation will experience, and why it should not be used routinely. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing.

  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 schema already fully documents solutionPath, including override behavior and discovery fallback, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions solution-level scope generically but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

  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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Delete this solution's ReSharper analysis cache'. It clearly distinguishes this cache-reset tool from the sibling inspection and cleanup tools by naming the cache as the target and framing the tool as a remedy for stale index issues.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool: when inspect reports compilation errors that the compiler itself does not, due to a stale index. It also warns 'not routine maintenance' and explains the cold-analysis cost. It references the sibling operations indirectly but does not explicitly contrast with when to choose cleanup or inspect instead.

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