Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sessions_continueC
  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 states the action but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., whether it runs until a breakpoint is hit, what occurs if no breakpoint exists, or if it requires specific permissions). For a debug operation with potential side effects, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

  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 complexity of a debug operation (with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what the tool returns, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

  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, clearly documenting all three required parameters (sessionId, file, line). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters interact during continuation. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

  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 ('Continue execution') and the target ('to the next breakpoint'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sessions_step_in/out/over by focusing on continuation to breakpoints rather than stepping through code. However, it doesn't explicitly mention debugging context, which is implied but could be more explicit.

  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 sessions_step_in, sessions_step_over, or sessions_step_out. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active debug session), nor does it clarify scenarios where continuing to a breakpoint is preferred over stepping. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

• sessions_endC
  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 mentions 'clean up resources', hinting at a destructive action, but doesn't specify if this is irreversible, what resources are cleaned up, or any side effects (e.g., terminating processes). This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs a mutation with potential impacts.

  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 is front-loaded with the core action ('End a debug session') and includes a useful outcome ('clean up resources'). There is no wasted verbiage, 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.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of ending a debug session (a likely destructive operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error conditions, or what happens post-execution, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

  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, with the parameter 'sessionId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('End') and resource ('a debug session'), and it adds the outcome ('clean up resources'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sessions_continue or sessions_state, which might also affect session states, so it's not a perfect 5.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), exclusions (e.g., not for paused sessions), or refer to sibling tools like sessions_create for starting sessions, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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

• sessions_stateB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It states the tool 'gets' state, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what data is returned, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It efficiently communicates the tool's function in minimal words, earning its place with zero waste.

  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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. For a debug session tool, more detail on what 'state' includes would be helpful, though the simplicity keeps it minimally viable.

  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 the single parameter 'sessionId' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining session ID format or where to obtain it. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of a debug session'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sessions_create' or 'sessions_end', which would require mentioning this is a read operation versus creation/termination tools.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'sessions_breakpoint' for debugging control. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• sessions_createB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't describe what happens after creation, whether the session starts automatically, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a creation tool.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'debug session' entails, what gets returned, or any behavioral context beyond the basic creation action, leaving important gaps in understanding.

  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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

  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 ('Create a new debug session') and the target resource ('for a Python script'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sessions_breakpoint or sessions_end which operate on existing sessions rather than creating new ones.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies this is for initial session creation, it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or contrast with other session management tools in the sibling list.

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

• sessions_step_inB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the breakpoint requirement. It doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if no breakpoint is active, error conditions, or side effects. More context is needed for a mutation tool.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a crucial prerequisite, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a debugging tool. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and full behavioral context, which are essential for an agent to use it correctly in a session management context.

  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 the schema fully documents the 'sessionId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 ('Step into') and target ('next function call'), specifying it's for debugging with a breakpoint requirement. It distinguishes from siblings like 'step_over' or 'step_out' by focusing on entering functions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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 ('requires active breakpoint') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'step_over' or 'continue'. It provides a prerequisite but lacks clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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

• sessions_step_overB
  3.2/5.0
  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 mentions the prerequisite of an active breakpoint, which is useful context, but doesn't describe what 'step over' entails (e.g., whether it executes the current line and moves to the next, or skips function calls), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the action and prerequisite without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of a debugging operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'step over' means behaviorally, potential outputs, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

  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, with 'sessionId' clearly documented as 'The debug session ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, so it doesn't compensate or add meaning. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

  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 ('Step over the current line') and specifies the prerequisite ('requires active breakpoint'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sessions_step_in' or 'sessions_step_out', which likely have similar debugging functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 by stating 'requires active breakpoint', suggesting when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sessions_continue' or other step-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

• sessions_step_outB
  3.3/5.0
  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 mentions the requirement of an 'active breakpoint', which adds useful context about preconditions. However, it lacks details on what 'step out' entails (e.g., does it exit to the caller, affect session state, or have side effects?), making it insufficient for a mutation tool in debugging.

  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 front-loads the core action ('step out of the current function') and includes a crucial precondition ('requires active breakpoint') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place by providing essential information concisely.

  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 (a debugging operation with mutation implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key precondition but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage.

  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, with the parameter 'sessionId' documented as 'The debug session ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  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 ('step out of') and the context ('current function'), which is a specific debugging operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'step_in' and 'step_over' by implying movement out of a function rather than into or over lines. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource (e.g., debug session) beyond the parameter, keeping it from 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description provides implied usage context by stating 'requires active breakpoint', which suggests when to use this tool (during debugging with a breakpoint set). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this vs. alternatives like 'sessions_continue' or 'sessions_step_over', nor does it specify prerequisites beyond the breakpoint requirement, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• sessions_breakpointA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action and outcome but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether execution pauses or resumes after), error handling, or rate limits. For a debugging tool with potential mutation effects, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's purpose, 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.

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the complexity of a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that interacts with debug sessions, more context on execution flow and results 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 input schema already documents all parameters (sessionId, file, line) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  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 ('Run to a breakpoint') and the outcome ('capture local variables'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sessions_continue (continue execution) or sessions_step_* (step through code). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 in a debugging context to stop at a specific breakpoint and gather variable data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sessions_step_over (step over a line) or sessions_continue (resume execution). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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