Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• discover_configsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It tells the user what it returns (paths, sizes, last modified times) which is useful output transparency. However, it doesn't disclose scan depth, performance implications of scanning a large directory, permission requirements, or whether scanning could interfere with systems. For an apparently read-only discovery tool, this is reasonable but not exhaustive.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then covers secondary details. It's efficient with no wasted words, listing specific example services and file types that aid comprehension. Slightly long but each clause contributes meaning.

  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 discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the return value (list with paths, sizes, modified times). Given the tool's moderate complexity (two optional, mutually-exclusive parameters), the description covers the essential context: what it scans, what it returns, and the two operational modes. It could mention parameter exclusivity, but that's a minor gap.

  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%, with both parameters ('service' and 'directory') already having descriptions in the schema. The description adds the complementary context that 'service' covers known system services like nginx/mysql/redis while 'directory' covers project-level configs like .env/.npmrc/*.json. This adds modest value beyond the schema but doesn't deeply extend parameter semantics.

  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 ('Scan') with a clear resource ('system for known service configuration files') and distinguishes two scanning modes (system-wide services vs. directory for project-level configs). It clearly differentiates from siblings like read_config (which reads a config, not discovers them) and read_log (log reading). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

  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 explains the two use cases: scanning system-wide for known service configs, or scanning a specific directory for project-level configs. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name sibling alternatives, the distinction between system-level and project-level scanning provides clear context for choosing parameters. It lacks explicit exclusions but the intent is well conveyed.

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

• read_configA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parsing capability and the priority rule (path over service), and mentions file size limits via parameters. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on parse failure, permissions errors, or how auto-location resolves ambiguous service matches. It also doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation explicitly, though it's implied.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single tight paragraph, front-loaded with the core action. It's concise but dense with useful info. It could mention sibling distinctions explicitly, but it's not bloated. The service list is quite long (leaning on schema) but that's in the schema already.

  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 tool is moderately complex with 5 params and many format/service options, but schema coverage is 100% and the description adds the parsing formats, dual usage modes, and priority rule. No output schema exists, but for a read/parse tool the return value can be reasonably inferred. Auto-detection behavior from file extension is mentioned in the format param schema.

  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 rich descriptions for each parameter. The description adds complementary context by naming example service names and format scenarios beyond the schema. The compactMode parameter ('keys-only') is contextualized as 'AI context saving' which adds useful intent. The description adds the priority ordering between service and path which isn't in 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 clearly states the tool reads and parses config files, lists many supported formats, and distinguishes between service-name auto-location vs direct file path. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like read_log and discover_configs by specifying it's about config files with parsing.

  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 explains two usage modes (service name auto-locate vs direct path) and notes path takes priority when both are given. It gives concrete examples like 'nginx'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this for alternatives, though siblings are clearly different (read_log, discover_configs, get_system_status).

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

• get_system_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose that 'all' returns everything but is slow (a performance/weight trait), and recommends 'overview' for lightweight checks. This gives the agent useful behavioral context about response weight and speed tradeoffs, though it doesn't disclose error conditions or permission requirements.

  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?

  A single dense, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, lists covered areas efficiently, and closes with actionable usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema. The coverage list is long but earns its place given the tool spans 17 categories.

  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?

  Despite a complex tool covering 17 categories, the description adequately conveys the scope, distinguishes the overview shortcut, warns about the 'all' performance cost, and covers the Windows-specific case. With a 100% documented schema and 0 required params, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this 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 fully documents all 17 enum options with descriptions. The description adds the practical recommendation hierarchy (overview > all for speed), which slightly exceeds the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description adds limited additional meaning beyond the performance note.

  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 'Get comprehensive system status for production server monitoring' with a specific verb+resource. It lists 15+ specific content areas (performance metrics, hardware specs, networking, processes, etc.) which thoroughly distinguishes it from siblings like read_config and read_log. Very specific and comprehensive purpose statement.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use 'overview' for a quick health snapshot, or specify a category for deep details.' It also flags 'all' as slow, telling the agent to prefer overview for quick checks. This is clear when-to-use guidance differentiated by category, and the sibling names (config/log tools) imply this is the operational-status tool.

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

• read_logA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: discloses the efficiency trait ('reads backwards from the end without loading the whole file into memory'), the case-insensitive grep behavior is implied, and it flags the tool as safe ('Safely'). It doesn't disclose much about return format or error behavior, but the described caching/efficiency benefit is genuinely useful behavioral context.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states function, the second explains efficiency/behavior, the third gives concrete use guidance. Well front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first clause and no redundant filler.

  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 simple 3-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It covers purpose, use cases, alternatives, and performance characteristics. No output schema exists, but the tool's return (filtered tail lines) is self-evident from the description.

  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% for all 3 parameters (path, lines, grep), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the grep being case-insensitive (echoed in schema) and the tail-backwards behavior, but doesn't add substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents. No major compensation needed since coverage is complete.

  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 does tail+grep on log files, with specific verb ('read the end'), resource ('log file'), and mode ('tail', optionally 'grep'). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming read_config and explaining when NOT to use it, which differentiates it from alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states when to use ('Use this instead of read_config for files like /var/log/syslog, nginx access logs') and names the alternative tool (read_config), establishing clear boundary conditions. The guidance about 'any file that could be massive' provides practical selection criteria.

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