Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_commandC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'security controls' which suggests safety features, it doesn't specify what those controls are, what permissions are required, whether commands run in a sandbox, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

  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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key characteristic ('with security controls'). Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. It's front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, output format, error handling), doesn't detail the security controls mentioned, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the potential complexity and risks of command execution, more completeness is needed.

  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?

  The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

  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 clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('a terminal command'), specifying it's for executing commands in a terminal environment. It adds the qualifier 'with security controls' which provides important context about the tool's nature. However, without sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other approaches or alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over direct terminal access or other execution methods. The 'security controls' mention hints at a context but doesn't provide explicit usage rules.

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