Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_configA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses redaction of secrets, but lacks details on error handling, potential side effects (e.g., banner files), or authentication requirements beyond SSH key. Could be more comprehensive.

  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 well-structured with a front-loaded action statement followed by an Args list. Every sentence is relevant, though slightly verbose. Could be tighter.

  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 (5 required params, no output schema or annotations), the description lacks information on output format, what happens on missing files, and redaction specifics. For an agent, gaps remain in understanding the result structure.

  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?

  Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section in the description provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters. Each parameter's role is defined (e.g., server_ip as hostname/IP, ssh_key as private key path), though format constraints are omitted.

  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 reads specific config files (server.xml, jvm.options, etc.) with redaction. The verb 'read' and resource 'config' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health_check and list_logs.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the description, but no when-not or alternative references are provided.

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

• health_checkA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behaviors: SSH connection, fallback HTTP clients (curl/wget/python3), process check via ps -ef, and no JDK dependencies. This provides transparency into the tool's operation.

  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 fairly concise and well-structured, with a brief overview followed by a clear Args list. However, the Args list could be integrated to reduce 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?

  Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete, explaining both health checks. It could mention return format, but the core functionality is well-covered.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for each of the 6 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title fields.

  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's purpose: SSH to a server and check an IBM Liberty app's health via HTTP probe and process check. It distinguishes from sibling tools (read_config, list_logs, analyze_logs) which have different purposes.

  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 when to use this tool (for health checking of IBM Liberty apps) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. However, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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

• list_logsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses SSH connection and listing of files with metadata, implying read-only. However, doesn't explicitly state no side effects or mention permissions, but sufficient for a listing 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?

  Description is front-loaded with main purpose, followed by oneliner usage guidance, then parameter list. No extraneous text, 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?

  No output schema, but description mentions output includes size, last-modified time, and rough category. Lacks explicit format details, but adequate for understanding. Could mention error handling or timeouts, but not critical for listing.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema has 0% description coverage, but description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, adding meaning about hostname, SSH user, key path, deployment directory, and application subfolder.

  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 enumerates files under a specific logs directory with metadata. It distinguishes from sibling analyze_logs by advising to call this first and pass paths, showing specific verb and resource.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says 'Call this first, then pass the relevant paths as log_files to analyze_logs - avoids blindly grepping every file'. Provides clear sequencing and rationale for use vs. alternative.

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

• analyze_logsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: best-effort time filtering, handling of unparseable timestamps, skipping files >25MB, and reporting skipped files. SSH authentication requirements are fully described.

  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 well-structured with an introductory paragraph and explicit Args list. It is front-loaded with core information. A minor nit: the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient and informative.

  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 9 parameters with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers behavior, edge cases, and alternative tool usage. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON) beyond 'matches with context', leaving a small gap.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description provides extensive parameter semantics beyond the schema (which only has type and title). It explains search case-insensitivity, time format (ISO-8601), log_files being relative paths, and the purpose of each parameter like server_ip, os_user, ssh_key.

  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 SSHs to a server and searches app logs for given strings/exception names, returning matches with context. It distinguishes from siblings via specific reference to list_logs and by providing scope choices.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly tells when to use this tool: it details best practice for large deployments (call list_logs first and pass specific log_files), explains time filtering limitations, and warns about size caps.

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