Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cu_actB
  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 must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that stale states are rejected and actions are bounded, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the action mutates state, whether commit=true is required, what side effects occur, or what happens on failure.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every element ('bounded action', 'state_id', 'stale states rejected') adds meaningful value.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema, the tool's 18 parameters and lack of annotations demand a richer description. The current text does not explain valid action values, the meaning of 'bounded', how stale states are detected, or the role of optional parameters like commit and click_method.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions state_id and vaguely references 'action' through the term 'bounded action'; the other 16 parameters, including required 'app', are not explained at all.

  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 ('Execute'), names the resource ('state_id'), and clarifies the scope ('one bounded action'). It effectively distinguishes cu_act from sibling tools like cu_batch and cu_observe by focusing on a single actionable state.

  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 this tool is for performing a single action on a state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like cu_batch or cu_observe, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• cu_batchA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the sequence is bounded and fail-fast, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what happens on failure, whether steps are atomic, or the nature of state_id, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

  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, front-loaded with key modifiers ('bounded', 'fail-fast', 'against one app'). Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with five parameters and no annotations. The description does not explain how to construct steps, what state_id refers to, or how this tool relates to sibling operations, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'bounded' (max_actions) and 'fail-fast' (fail_fast), but does not explain the structure of steps, the purpose of state_id, or the app parameter, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

  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 runs a bounded, fail-fast action sequence against one app. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like cu_act (single action) and cu_observe (observation).

  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 for multi-step actions within one app and highlights bounded/fail-fast behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cu_act or provide exclusions.

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

• cu_find_appA
  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 does add a useful filter ('with visible windows'), but it does not state read-only behavior, potential side effects, permission requirements, or how null/empty queries are handled.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes meaning: the action, the resource, and the optional filter.

  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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core function and filter. Still, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral details, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 0%, and the description compensates by referring to the 'query' parameter as an 'optional name filter', which adds semantic meaning. However, it does not explain matching behavior (substring, exact, case sensitivity) or the effect of null, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'running apps with visible windows', including an optional 'name filter'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cu_act or cu_observe, which suggest different actions.

  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 you need to see running apps with visible windows, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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

• cu_metricsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Return...' implying a read-only operation, but it does not specify data freshness, whether it aggregates historical data, or any potential side effects. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful 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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context on when to invoke it versus siblings and any behavioral details. The output schema likely documents return values, but the description could mention typical use cases or limitations.

  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 trivially covers everything. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is sufficient given there are no inputs to describe.

  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 ('aggregate cost and error metrics'), clearly scoped to 'this process.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like cu_observe (raw observation) and cu_act (actions) by focusing on metrics aggregation.

  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 its usage—call to retrieve cost/error metrics—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings like cu_observe or cu_metrics. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• cu_observeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'state read' (safe, read-only) and 'compact' with 'top-K controls' (not exhaustive), which is meaningful. It doesn't cover permissions or side effects, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

  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?

  A single, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and return values. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

  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?

  Despite an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. It omits key parameters like output_mode, vision, and preset, and offers no usage alternatives. The core idea is present but not enough for reliable invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for 'app' (one app) and 'top-K' (max_results indirectly). Seven parameters exist, but intent, preset, vision, output_mode, and include_screenshot are unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap.

  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 this is a 'Compact state read for one app' with a specific verb ('read') and resource ('one app'), and it names the return values ('top-K controls and a state_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cu_act (actions) and cu_metrics (metrics).

  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 context is implied: use this when you need a compact state read for a single app. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like cu_metrics or cu_find_app.

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