Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_configB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Reads'. No details on safety, error handling when file is missing, permissions required, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but lacks output behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns. Adding the return type would improve completeness.

  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 the optional path parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

  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 'Reads the Claude Desktop configuration file', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_config (write) and list_backups (backup operations).

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for when to choose get_config over siblings like validate_command or restore_backup.

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

• validate_commandB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the check is for existence, but does not indicate the return format (e.g., boolean, status code), or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is very brief and could benefit from structured format, but it has no wasted words.

  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 simple nature and one parameter, the description omits critical details about the return value (e.g., boolean, error) and behavior. An agent cannot fully understand what to expect from the tool's output, making it incomplete.

  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 the single parameter 'command'. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('Executable name ... or absolute path'). Baseline of 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 tool checks existence of a command executable on the system path or absolute path. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_config and list_backups, which have different purposes.

  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 or when not to. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• restore_backupB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'restores' without clarifying if it overwrites, needs permissions, or whether unsaved changes are affected.

  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?

  Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with verb and object. No wasted text.

  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?

  No output schema and no annotations. Description fails to specify result of restoration (e.g., config reloaded? requires restart?) or any side effects.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond 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 action ('restores'), the object ('backup configuration'), and the target ('configuration file'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_backups and get_config.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_config). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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

• list_backupsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields but fails to state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. For a list operation, the description should at least imply safety (e.g., 'This operation does not modify any data').

  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 consists of a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

  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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It informs the agent about the returned fields (filename, timestamp, size) and the scope ('all available'). However, it could mention if backups are ordered or filtered, but that's not strictly necessary.

  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 schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and mentioning the output fields adds value beyond the empty 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 lists all available configuration backups and includes the specific fields returned (filename, creation timestamp, size). The verb 'lists' and resource 'configuration backups' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from siblings like restore_backup or save_config.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The agent must infer that this is for listing backups based on context, but there is no direct guidance such as 'Use this to view backups; use restore_backup to restore them.'

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

• save_configA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses a key behavior (automatic backup creation), which is critical for understanding the tool's side effects. However, it does not mention other important behaviors like overwriting existing files, error handling, or permission requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and leaves 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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word is necessary; no extraneous 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools that clarify the ecosystem, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavior. It could be slightly improved by noting the backup location or naming convention, but it is largely sufficient.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('path' and 'config'), so the schema already provides adequate meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states.

  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 primary action ('Saves the configuration JSON') and explicitly mentions an important side-effect (automatic timestamped backup). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_config (read), list_backups (list), restore_backup (restore), and validate_command (validate).

  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 implies the tool is for saving configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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