Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• connectA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that if already connected, the tool internally closes the existing connection and reconnects—a key behavioral trait. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the disclosed behavior is valuable.

  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 appropriately sized with a concise summary and an Args list. All sentences provide relevant information. Minor distraction comes from the slightly awkward formatting of line_ending options with backtick-enclosed line breaks, but overall it is well-structured.

  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 connect tool, the description covers the essential behavioral context (prerequisite of list_ports, reconnection behavior) and parameter details. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. The description is adequate and leaves no major gaps for its simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: port with examples (/dev/cu.usbserial-10, COM3), baudrate as communication speed with default 19200, and line_ending as the newline code appended to commands with allowed values (CR, CR+LF, LF). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

  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 '接続する' (connect) to a specified 'シリアルポート' (serial port), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools list_ports and write_and_read by focusing on establishing the connection.

  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 explicitly instructs to use the port name from list_ports, implying a workflow sequence. It also notes that an existing connection is closed before reconnecting, which is a usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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

• write_and_readA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that line_ending is auto-appended, wait_for causes waiting for a prompt string, and all data is logged. These behavioral details go beyond the schema and are valuable for the agent.

  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 well-structured: a clear main action, then prerequisites, behavioral notes, and an Args list. It is not overly verbose and every part adds necessary information.

  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, combined with the presence of an output schema, provides sufficient context for effective use. It covers prerequisites, behavior, and side effects like logging, though it leaves return value format to the output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: command, wait_for, and timeout, including optionality and meaning. This completely compensates for the schema gap.

  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 sends a command to a serial port, receives a response, and returns it. It also specifies the prerequisite of connecting, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ports and connect.

  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 explicitly instructs to execute connect beforehand, providing clear sequential context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and sibling names make the appropriate usage scenario evident.

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

• list_portsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that on macOS, /dev/cu.* ports are prioritized and /dev/tty.* is excluded, and it details the exact output structure (device, description, hwid), going beyond a basic statement of function.

  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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage directive, a platform nuance, and a Returns block. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, platform behavior, and return format, providing the agent with all necessary context to select and invoke the tool correctly. No gaps are evident.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers (100% 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 clearly states the tool returns information about all connected serial ports, using the specific verb '返す' (returns) and resource 'シリアルポート' (serial ports). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like connect and write_and_read, which perform actions rather than listing ports.

  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 instructs users to run this tool before calling connect ('connect の呼び出し前に必ず実行し'), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also adds platform-specific behavior for macOS, enhancing the agent's ability to invoke it correctly.

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