Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• command_bridge_list_audit_eventsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only and safe behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the redaction policy: commands are redacted, and output, bearer tokens, and environment values are never included. This is critical behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

  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 the main purpose front-loaded, followed by a necessary caveat about redaction. No wasted words.

  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 list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and what is intentionally excluded, giving the agent enough context to invoke 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 single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (with default and range). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recent CommandBridge command audit events'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_system_info and run_command. The scope is 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 purpose implies when to use it (for auditing past commands), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. The redaction note subtly hints at expectations, but no direct usage guidance is provided.

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

• command_bridge_run_commandA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the allowlist mode behavior and explicitly warning that 'This tool may change host state when unrestricted mode is enabled.' This goes beyond the annotations to explain the mode-dependent risk.

  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, consisting of three short sentences that each provide essential information: the action/platform, the allowlist restriction, and the potential for state changes. No filler words or redundant details are present.

  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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the core purpose, platform, safety modes, and state-change risk. It does not fully explain the cwd restriction or timeout behavior, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for a potentially destructive command execution 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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the meaning.

  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's specific action: 'Run one command on this Linux or Windows host.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_system_info, list_audit_events) which retrieve information, and the platform scope adds clarity.

  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 (executing a command on the host) and hints at constraints via 'Allowlist mode blocks shell control syntax and unconfigured commands.' Direct alternatives are not named, but the sibling tools are obviously read-only and different, giving implicit guidance. No exclusions are stated.

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

• command_bridge_get_system_infoA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the two categories of returned data (OS info and command policy), which is more specific than the title alone. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and contains no redundant jargon or filler. Every word earns its place, 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.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema to document return values, and strong annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. It clearly states what the tool produces and is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 fully covers parameter semantics. According to the rules, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description correctly does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters.

  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 operating-system information and the effective CommandBridge command policy, using a specific verb ('Return') and naming the exact resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like command_bridge_run_command and command_bridge_list_audit_events.

  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 when one needs OS info or the current command policy, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over siblings or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implicit.

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