Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gdb_closeC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It acknowledges destruction ('terminate and remove'), but omits details like side effects on running processes, required auth, or error handling (e.g., closing an already-closed session).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is too brief; it lacks critical information that would justify its length. While concise, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters.

  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 a simple signature (1 param, no nested objects), the description fails to cover prerequisites (session must exist), return values (though output schema exists), or side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain the sole parameter ('session_id'). It does not mention what it is, how to obtain it, or its format, providing no value beyond the schema.

  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 action ('terminate and remove') and the resource ('a gdb session'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like gdb_spawn (create), gdb_exec (run commands), and gdb_interrupt (halt execution).

  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, such as when to close versus interrupt a session, or whether multiple closes are safe.

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

• gdb_execB
  3.2/5.0
  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 mentions that output is returned since the previous call, but does not indicate whether the tool is destructive, blocking, or requires specific permissions. Side effects and concurrency behavior are omitted.

  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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the action. It is efficient but could include more detail without bloating.

  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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and a critical role in debugging, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on required session context, timeout implications, and output format (though output schema exists). More context is needed for effective agent use.

  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 only 25% (only max_output_bytes has a description). The description does not add meaning to parameters like session_id, timeout, or command beyond their names. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 sends a gdb command and returns output since the last call, with a specific behavior for empty commands. It distinguishes the action and resource (gdb command execution).

  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 some usage hint (empty command polls output) but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use gdb_exec versus sibling tools like gdb_interrupt or gdb_spawn. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• gdb_interruptB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the core action (send SIGINT, wait for prompt, return output) but omits details like potential side effects on the debuggee, what 'incremental output' means, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations (none provided).

  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 sentence of 16 words, front-loading the key action. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating action from output).

  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 3 parameters and a likely output schema (not shown), the description covers the main behavior but omits edge cases like session not found or timeout handling. It is adequate for a straightforward interrupt tool but not fully comprehensive.

  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 low (33%), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the overall action. The description does not explain session_id, timeout, or max_output_bytes semantics, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 sends SIGINT to a GDB session and returns output. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gdb_exec (which executes commands) and gdb_spawn (which starts sessions).

  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. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention sibling tools like gdb_exec for command execution instead.

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

• gdb_spawnA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a session id is returned and lists supported modes, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 (7 parameters, output schema, nested objects), the description covers the primary modes. It does not emphasize that work_dir is required or clarify dependencies between parameters, but it is largely complete for a spawn 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping of parameters (e.g., core_path, attach_pid, remote_target as exclusive options) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

  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 'Start' and the resource 'gdb session', and specifies that it returns a session id. It lists the supported modes (local programs, core files, attach, remote targets), differentiating it from sibling tools like gdb_close, gdb_exec, and gdb_interrupt.

  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 enumerates the various use cases (local, core, attach, remote), which implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives to sibling tools.

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