Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_fileC
  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 mentions 'agent-sudo policy enforcement', hinting at authorization needs but lacks specifics on permissions, error handling, or behavioral traits like file size limits or encoding. For a read operation, more transparency about constraints would be beneficial.

  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, front-loaded sentence of 8 words. It is concise and gets to the point, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

  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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about return value format, error behavior (e.g., file not found), and any constraints. Could be more complete for a minimal 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% for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add information beyond what the schema provides ('File path to read.'). 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 tool name and description clearly indicate reading a local file. The phrase 'agent-sudo policy enforcement' adds context about authorization, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_shell_command, write_file, and get_runtime_context. Could be slightly more specific about the policy, but overall clear.

  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. Siblings include write_file and run_shell_command, but the description does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded. Implied usage is only reading files, but no explicit 'when not to use' or differentiation.

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

• run_shell_commandA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions gating via agent-sudo and a narrow allowlist, but does not explain error behavior, output format, or what happens when a command is not in the allowlist.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

  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 no output schema and the tool's nature (shell execution), the description lacks details on output format, error conditions, and specific allowlist content. It suffices as a demo reference but is incomplete for robust 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 coverage is 100% with parameter description 'Command line to evaluate.' The tool description adds that the command will be classified and gated, providing extra context beyond the schema, but still relies on the schema for basic parameter definition.

  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 states it is an executor that classifies and gates commands via agent-sudo, executing only a narrow allowlist. It clearly conveys the restricted shell purpose but uses 'DEMO/REFERENCE' which slightly obscures the core action.

  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?

  Explicitly states it is not a general shell and directs to embed agent-sudo for real commands, giving context for when to use the tool (demo/reference) and when not to (production).

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

• get_runtime_contextA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what it returns. Since annotations are absent, it carries full burden, but fails to mention potential failure conditions (e.g., not in a git repo), read-only nature, or performance guarantees. However, the simple getter nature mitigates this somewhat.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get') and lists specific items concisely. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of what data it returns. The absence of output schema is compensated by the description listing the fields, though the exact structure is not provided. Given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

  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 and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to describe. The description does not need to add parameter 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 verb 'Get' and specifies the exact resources: current working directory, git repository root, active branch, and workspace status details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (read_file, run_shell_command, write_file) which focus on file/content operations, not context retrieval.

  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?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used when workspace context is needed, but lacks statements about exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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

• write_fileA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the workspace constraint and security gating, though the 'classifies and gates' mechanism is vague. It does not cover error handling or failure modes.

  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?

  Two sentences succinctly convey purpose, mechanism, and constraint, with no redundant information and key points front-loaded.

  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?

  While the description covers core behavior, it lacks details on error handling, gating outcomes, and content validation. Given the simplicity and no output schema, moderate completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

  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 schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions, but the description adds crucial context that the path must be within the configured workspace, resolving ambiguity in the schema's 'File path to write'.

  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 it writes files inside a configured workspace with security gating, distinguishing it from siblings (read_file, run_shell_command, get_runtime_context) by specifying the action and constraints.

  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 implies use for writing files within the workspace and not for arbitrary paths, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings beyond the workspace restriction.

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