Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sandbox_execA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing key behavioral traits: the sandbox is isolated, commands run in bash, no state persists between calls (except filesystem), default timeout of 120 seconds, and persistence of filesystem. This covers safety, execution environment, and operational constraints comprehensively.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details and usage tips in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value—explaining state persistence, parameter usage, and timeout—with zero waste or redundancy. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 complexity (sandboxed execution with multiple parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering execution environment, behavioral traits, and parameter guidance. However, it lacks details on output format or error handling, which would be beneficial for an agent. It's nearly complete but has a minor gap in output expectations.

  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 parameters well. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of stdin and working_directory in practical terms (e.g., 'to write files or pass data without shell escaping'), but it doesn't significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 shell command'), the environment ('in an isolated Debian Linux sandbox'), and the execution context ('Commands run in bash'). It distinguishes this as a sandboxed execution tool with no sibling tools to differentiate from.

  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 on when to use certain parameters (e.g., 'Use the working_directory parameter or chain commands with && to control execution context', 'To write files or pass data without shell escaping, use the stdin parameter'), but since there are no sibling tools, it cannot offer guidance on alternatives. It effectively explains usage scenarios without exclusions.

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