Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_commandC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does (executes commands) but lacks critical behavioral details: security implications, permission requirements, whether commands run synchronously/asynchronously, timeout behavior, error handling, or output format. For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extensive examples (three full JSON blocks) dominate the text. While examples are helpful, they could be more concise or structured as a single example with variations. The description is appropriately sized but could be more efficiently organized.

  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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (stdout, stderr, exit codes), security considerations, or error conditions. Given the complexity and potential risks of command execution, more contextual information is needed for safe and effective 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good baseline documentation. The description adds value through concrete examples showing how parameters work together in different shells, illustrating shell-specific command syntax and working directory formats. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

  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: 'Execute a command in the specified shell (powershell, cmd, or gitbash)'. It provides a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('command'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_execute' which likely executes commands over SSH. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 'ssh_execute' or 'get_command_history'. It shows example usage but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any usage guidelines, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

• get_command_historyC
  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 implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or whether the history is filtered by session or user. The example response adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

  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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by helpful examples. However, the example usage and response could be integrated more seamlessly, and some sentences (like the standalone 'Example usage:') are slightly redundant.

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and provides examples, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it minimally viable for an agent to use 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'limit' parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how ordering works or what 'history' encompasses, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 ('history of executed commands'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_command' or 'ssh_execute', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 'execute_command' or 'ssh_execute', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The example usage is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidelines.

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

• ssh_executeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that SSH configuration is required and provides an example, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, timeouts, security implications, or output format. The description adds some context (configuration needs) but is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The example and configuration details are relevant but could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the configuration block is lengthy.

  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 complexity (remote execution with configuration dependencies), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and configuration but misses critical details like return values, error behavior, and security considerations. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

  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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by illustrating usage in an example, but does not provide additional semantics like command syntax constraints or connectionId enumeration details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Execute a command') and resource ('on a remote host via SSH'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute_command' (likely local), 'get_command_history' (querying), and 'ssh_disconnect' (connection management). The verb+resource combination is precise 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context through the example and configuration details, suggesting this tool is for remote SSH execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'execute_command' (e.g., for local vs. remote commands) or prerequisites beyond configuration. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

• ssh_disconnectA
  3.7/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cleanly close SSH connections', which implies a graceful termination rather than abrupt disconnection, adding useful context. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to ongoing operations, or error handling for invalid connection IDs.

  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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, provides a clear usage example, and ends with practical guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

  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 disconnect tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose, usage context, and provides an example. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details about what 'cleanly close' entails or what happens after disconnection.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'connectionId' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the SSH connection to disconnect'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Disconnect from') and target ('SSH server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_execute', but the verb 'disconnect' is specific enough to distinguish it from execution or query tools.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'when they're no longer needed' and 'to cleanly close SSH connections'. This gives practical guidance on timing and purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, such as distinguishing it from simply letting connections time out.

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