Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ddev_composer_commandC
  2.9/5.0
  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 but provides minimal information. It mentions running a command but doesn't disclose execution context (e.g., where it runs, permissions needed), potential side effects (e.g., package installation/modification), error handling, or output characteristics. For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple command execution tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

  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?

  Given the complexity of command execution tools and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when the command runs (e.g., execution environment, output format, error conditions), nor does it address common use cases or limitations. For a tool that could have significant behavioral implications, more context is needed.

  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 both parameters ('command' and 'project_name') with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify command syntax examples, project_name defaults, or parameter interactions. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('Run') and target ('a Composer command in the DDEV project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ddev_exec_command' which might also run commands, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific Composer-focused tool versus general command execution.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this Composer-specific tool over 'ddev_exec_command' for general commands, or whether it should be used instead of direct Composer execution outside DDEV. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual boundaries are specified.

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

• ddev_db_queryC
  2.9/5.0
  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 but provides minimal information. It states the action ('Execute a SQL query') which implies both read and write operations are possible, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether queries can be destructive, transaction handling, error behavior, or result format. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 database query tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address important contextual information like what types of SQL queries are supported, whether it's read-only or can modify data, what authentication is required, how results are returned, or error handling. The description provides only the most basic functional statement without the necessary context for safe and effective use.

  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 (query, database, project_name) with their descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'SQL query' which is already covered by the schema's description of the 'query' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('Execute a SQL query') and target resource ('on the DDEV database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential database-related siblings (none are listed among the provided sibling tools, but the description doesn't address this).

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from other database interaction methods. The sibling tools are all DDEV-related but serve different purposes, yet the description doesn't help the agent understand this distinction.

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

• ddev_exec_commandC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the basic action but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive, what happens on failure, rate limits, or output format. For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of commands are appropriate, what environment they run in, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of command execution and lack of structured data, more guidance is needed.

  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 both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions executing a command but doesn't clarify syntax, shell environment, or project context beyond what the parameter descriptions provide.

  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 action ('execute a command') and target ('inside the DDEV web service'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ddev_composer_command or ddev_db_query, which also execute commands in related contexts.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose ddev_exec_command over ddev_composer_command or ddev_db_query, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for execution.

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

• ddev_project_statusC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool retrieves status and configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output returns, if there are rate limits, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is retrieved (status and configuration) and for what (a DDEV project).

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (a status check with one parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status and configuration' entails, the format of the return value, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured metadata, more descriptive detail is needed to fully guide an AI agent.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_name' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of project names or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status and configuration of a DDEV project'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ddev_list_projects' (which lists projects) or 'ddev_exec_command' (which executes commands), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific status tool over alternatives.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'ddev_list_projects' for listing projects or 'ddev_exec_command' for executing commands, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual cues for selecting this status-checking tool over others in the DDEV toolset.

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

• ddev_list_projectsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't describe whether it requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether it's paginated, if there are rate limits, or what happens with no projects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

  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's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about output format, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a listing tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more behavioral context to be truly complete.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. Baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent parameters.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('DDEV projects') with specific scope ('all'), and mentions what information is returned ('status and information'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ddev_project_status' which likely checks a single project, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing/searching tools that might exist.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ddev_project_status' or 'dsearch' tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any explicit 'when-not-to-use' scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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