Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• stop_sessionB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'free resources' but omits critical details: whether the stop is immediate or graceful, if it saves state, or if it errors on no active session. The description is too minimal to ensure safe invocation.

  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 conveys the core action without any filler. It is optimally concise while remaining clear.

  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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not address error states, idempotency, or whether it should be called only when a session is active. More context is needed for reliable use.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter meaning is needed, meeting the baseline of 4 for no-param tools.

  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 'Stop' and the target 'the running Vivado session', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_session' and 'session_status'. It is specific and unambiguous.

  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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a session must be started first) or conditions under which stopping is appropriate. The description simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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

• session_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations; description simply says 'Return status/statistics' without detailing what data is returned or behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.

  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?

  No output schema; description lacks details on return format or content, but tool is simple with zero parameters.

  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?

  No parameters, so schema coverage is complete. Baseline 4 applies as per rules.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'status/statistics for the current Vivado session', distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_tcl_command, start_session, stop_session.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the purpose is implied and siblings suggest different use cases.

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

• run_tcl_commandA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auto-start behavior, which is a key trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects of arbitrary TCL commands, error handling, or session state management, leaving some 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action followed by the auto-start note. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main inputs and outcome. It lacks details on output format, but the statement 'return its output' is sufficient for a command execution tool with sibling tools managing sessions.

  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. The description adds little beyond stating 'arbitrary TCL command' and 'persistent Vivado session,' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema definitions.

  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 'Send an arbitrary TCL command to the persistent Vivado session and return its output,' which specifies the verb (send, return) and resource (TCL command to Vivado session). It distinguishes from sibling tools (session_status, start_session, stop_session) by focusing on 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage by stating 'Auto-starts a session if none exists,' suggesting this tool can be used without manually starting a session. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like session_status or start_session, leaving some implicit guidance.

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

• start_sessionA
  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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that sessions are persistent and that an existing session may be reused, which is critical. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., what happens if the path differs from an existing session) or specify security/permissions, leaving some 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the optional parameter note. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly concise and 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameter, and reuse behavior. It does not describe return values, but in context, this is acceptable. A slightly more detailed note on session id or status upon success could improve completeness.

  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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter vivado_path. The description adds value by stating it is optional and provides an example, clarifying its purpose beyond the schema description. It does not elaborate on defaults or behavior when omitted, but the added context is sufficient.

  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 starts a persistent Vivado TCL session with an explicit command example. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('Vivado TCL session'), and the sibling tools (run_tcl_command, session_status, stop_session) indicate it is the session initialization tool, distinguishing it effectively.

  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 when to use the optional vivado_path parameter and mentions session reuse, providing context for typical use. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., if a session is already running from a different path) or compare to alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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