Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_notesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states search targets both body text and tags, but lacks details on whether searches are case-sensitive, support partial matches, or have rate limits. It does not mention return format or pagination. The description adds modest value but is insufficient for a tool lacking 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 with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and target, then expands on scope. Every phrase adds value.

  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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the search target and scope. However, it omits any mention of results behavior (e.g., whether it returns full notes or summaries) and does not compensate for missing annotations, but the low complexity reduces the burden.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'keyword'. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that keyword searches both body and tags, which the schema description ('検索キーワード') does not convey. This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

  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?

  Description clearly specifies the action (検索する), the target (保存済みのメモ), and the search scope (本文とタグの両方). It distinguishes from add_note, which creates notes. However, it does not explicitly contrast the two, leaving a slight gap in sibling differentiation.

  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 implies usage for keyword search but gives no guidance on when to use this vs. add_note, nor does it mention any context or prerequisites for searching. No exclusion criteria or alternative scenarios are provided.

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

• add_noteA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 states '保存する' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on duplicates. For a simple create operation, this is minimally 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the essential action. No wasted words.

  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?

  For a simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the primary use case and differentiates from the sibling. It could mention the return value but is not required.

  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% with both parameters described. The tool's description adds no new information about the parameters; it only restates the purpose. 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 states the verb '保存する' (save) and resource 'メモ' (note), and it is distinct from the sibling tool 'search_notes' which is for retrieval.

  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?

  It provides explicit context for when to use: '打ち合わせの決定事項や、あとで思い出したいことを記録するときに使う' (use when recording meeting decisions or things you want to remember later). It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the purpose is clear.

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