Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_logsC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (assumed given 'search'), whether multiple servers can be queried concurrently, wait times, output format, or whether results are truncated. For a tool accessing remote servers, transparency about non-mutating behavior would be valuable context.

  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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and conveys the core purpose directly. It could arguably use slightly more detail about return behavior, but the current size is appropriate 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?

  This is a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters but no output schema and no annotations. The description covers core purpose but omits behavioral details like output format, pagination limits, timeouts, or whether 'all' servers causes sequential or parallel execution. For a tool that may be invoked across multiple servers, more completeness around execution semantics would improve it.

  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 fully documents all 4 parameters. Per baseline rule with high coverage, a 3 is appropriate. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema.

  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 searches application logs using grep patterns, with a specific verb (search), resource (application logs on remote servers), and mechanism (grep patterns). It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but no siblings exist, so the purpose is unambiguous and complete for a log-searching tool.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what type of logs it covers beyond 'application', or what constraints exist (e.g., permissions, server access requirements). With no siblings, the when-to-use distinction is less critical, but there's no stated context for when this would be appropriate or what alternatives exist.

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