Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• memory_deleteA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the deletion removes from recall but remains recoverable via Git history, and it deletes 'exactly one' memory. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not mention side effects like concurrency checks, but the added recoverability and scoping are meaningful.

  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 compact sentence that leads with the action and core constraints, then adds the recoverability detail. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.

  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 destructive operation with three required parameters and an output schema, the description is thin. It omits behavior on mismatch (e.g., if expected_title or base_revision does not match), error semantics, or any guidance on when this tool should be chosen over siblings. The recoverability note is helpful (something the output schema won't reveal), but other important context is missing.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions parameters as 'ID, expected title, and revision' without explaining their purpose, format, or how they are used (e.g., what an expected title is for, what a base revision means, or how they act as safety checks). No examples or constraints are provided, leaving agents to infer semantics from names alone.

  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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('one committed memory'), and identifies the parameters by role (ID, expected title, revision). It clearly distinguishes from siblings memory_read and memory_write by the action it performs.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies deletion use case without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'use memory_read to view' or 'use memory_write to create'). No context is given for when a deletion is appropriate.

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

• memory_writeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses valuable behavioral details: patch is all-or-nothing, replace overwrites the complete summary/body, and existing memories require a current base revision, implying optimistic concurrency. This does not contradict any annotation.

  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 dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence addresses a distinct aspect: overall behavior, summary semantics, and modifications semantics.

  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 description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: the three modes, the summary convention, patch atomicity, and the base-revision requirement. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed here. A minor gap is not pointing agents to memory_read to retrieve the current base revision.

  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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining summary as a 'stable one-line description', explaining the exact semantics of patch and replace, and mentioning the base revision requirement. This is useful context that the bare schema types do not convey, though title and project are left to the 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 states a specific action ('Create or modify') on a clear resource ('permanent memory') and further differentiates the three operational modes: create, patch, and replace. This makes the tool unmistakably the write counterpart to memory_read and memory_delete.

  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 internal guidance on when to use patch vs replace and notes the base-revision prerequisite for modifying existing memories. However, it does not explicitly mention memory_read or memory_delete or state when to prefer this tool over those siblings.

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

• memory_readA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: search results are 'bounded ranked candidate passages,' list returns only IDs/titles, and get returns a 'complete committed memory with its revision.' No contradiction with 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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses parallel clauses to describe each action without redundancy or filler. It is compact yet informative.

  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 three modes and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the behavior of each action and what kind of result to expect. Annotations cover safety and side-effect concerns, and sibling names make the read/write/delete division clear.

  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 fully documents the action variants, required fields, and limit bounds through its oneOf structure and const values. The description does not add parameter-level detail such as query format or memory_id semantics, but with schema coverage effectively complete, the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read permanent memory') and enumerates three distinct modes—list, search, get—with their concrete outcomes. This distinguishes the tool from memory_write and memory_delete without relying on the name alone.

  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 tells an agent what each mode returns, which is clear guidance for choosing list vs search vs get. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of memory_write or memory_delete,' but 'Read' and the sibling names make the intended usage obvious.

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