Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_filesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the scope ('configured root directories') and output format ('returns JSON data'), but does not cover details like symlink handling, error behavior, or performance characteristics. These omissions are not critical for a read-only listing tool, but more depth would improve transparency.

  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 directly states the action and output. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

  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?

  The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description does not mention relationship to sibling tools or provide a return structure beyond 'JSON data'. A note on when to use this vs dir_tree would improve completeness, though the current text is minimally viable given the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 lists files and directories within configured root directories and returns JSON data. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'dir_tree', which might present a similar listing in a different format.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_files, read_files, or dir_tree. There is no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

• dir_treeB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and does not mention edge cases, such as handling of non-existent paths, whether files are included in the tree, or how hidden files are treated. The description is too thin to be fully 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?

  The description is a single concise sentence that focuses on the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the format of the returned tree, whether it includes files, or how edge cases are handled. Given the lack of structural metadata, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  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 three parameters. The description only references the 'path' parameter and adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for maxDepth and includeHidden. Baseline 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 specifies the action ('Returns a nested directory tree') and the resource ('specified path'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files (flat listing), search_files, and read_files by focusing on the tree structure.

  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 it should be used when a directory tree is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_files or search_files. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• read_filesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the core behavior (reads files and returns JSON), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error handling, file size limits, or return format details, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

  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 no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 and no output schema. The description only says 'returns JSON data' without specifying the structure or fields returned. It also omits information about error behavior, line range handling, or multiple file output, which are relevant for a tool of this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'one or more files' is already captured by the path/paths properties.

  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 reads content from one or more files and returns JSON data. This specific verb (reads) and resource (files) clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files, search_files, and dir_tree.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that list_files is for listing file names, search_files for searching, etc., nor does it offer any context or exclusions.

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

• search_filesA
  3.6/5.0
  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 only mentions returning JSON data, omitting important behaviors like recursive traversal, default case-insensitivity, or result truncation. Some defaults are in the schema, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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 no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function without wasting words.

  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 no annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the JSON return format, result ordering, error behavior, or traversal details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters clearly. The description adds little beyond 'text content within files', which is echoed in the query parameter description. This matches the baseline for full schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('text content within files'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files, read_files, and dir_tree. The scope is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

  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 its usage: use this tool when you need to find text content within files, as opposed to listing files (list_files), reading files (read_files), or exploring structure (dir_tree). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.