Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• filtered_shellA
  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 must carry full burden. It discloses the filtering strategy and preservation of actionable info, but fails to mention potential side effects of arbitrary command execution (e.g., destructive changes, required permissions, or security risks). This is a significant gap for a command execution 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?

  The description is extremely concise – two sentences front-loaded with the core action and key benefit. Every phrase contributes meaning without waste.

  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?

  The description covers the main purpose and benefit but lacks details on parameter usage (especially filter_level), output format (no output schema), and safety warnings. It is minimally adequate for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about filtering but does not elaborate on the filter_level enum values or how to choose them. It adds some value but not enough to exceed baseline.

  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 executes a shell command with intelligent output filtering. It specifies the key differentiator (detects command type, applies optimal filter) and distinguishes from siblings like filtered_grep (focused on grep) and smart_git (git-specific).

  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 general shell commands with filtering to reduce tokens, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like filtered_grep or smart_git. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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

• filtered_grepA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses deduplication with '[×N] prefix', grouping behavior, and fallback mechanism from ripgrep to native search. This goes beyond basic tool purpose. However, it does not mention potential performance implications, permissions needed, or encoding/error handling.

  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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and key features. 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?

  With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains grouping and deduplication but does not detail the return format (e.g., structure of results, how file paths are presented). It also omits default parameter behaviors for exclude/include/max_results/context_lines beyond the schema. Adequate but has gaps for a complex 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining deduplication and grouping, which relates to the 'group_by' and 'pattern' parameters. However, it does not add specific details about each parameter (e.g., what 'exclude' globs are defaulted). Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high 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 'Search for regex patterns in a directory' with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('regex patterns in a directory'). It adds distinctive behaviors: grouping, deduplication, and fallback to ripgrep. Sibling tools like filtered_read and filtered_shell have different purposes, making this tool distinct.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for regex searching but offers no guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools like filtered_read or filtered_shell. However, the context of sibling tools suggests the purpose is clear enough.

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

• filtered_readA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the three modes and their behaviors (e.g., collapsing blanks for 'full', extracting declarations for 'signatures', focusing with ±10 lines for 'relevant'), but does not mention default behavior when mode is omitted or potential side effects.

  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: first clearly states the purpose, second lists modes. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  The description covers modes well but does not explain interactions between parameters (e.g., start_line/end_line and modes), default mode if unspecified, or behavior with directories. Given no output schema and 5 parameters, additional context would help.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor detail beyond the schema (e.g., '+10 lines context' for relevant mode), but the schema already provides good descriptions for each parameter.

  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 reads a file with intelligent reduction and lists three distinct modes, making the purpose specific and differentiating it from sibling tools like filtered_grep and filtered_shell.

  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 (e.g., 'for reading files with reduction') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

• smart_testA
  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. It discloses that the tool shows only failures by default, includes fields like expected/received and truncated stack, and auto-detects test frameworks. However, it does not mention whether the command execution is read-only or could have side effects.

  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: two sentences covering purpose, default behavior, and auto-detection. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides solid context: default output, auto-detection, and structured format hints. It could be more explicit about return structure, but is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

  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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal extra parameter context beyond the schema (e.g., default show_passes behavior is implied). As a result, it meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance understanding.

  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 executes a test command and returns structured, actionable output. It specifies default behavior (shows only failures) and lists detected test frameworks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like filtered_grep or smart_git 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for running test commands, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like filtered_shell for arbitrary commands or when to prefer other tools. The context from sibling names helps but the description lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

• smart_gitA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: compact output, filtered hunks, one-line log, minimal confirmation. This goes beyond the input schema by describing output formats and confirmation behavior.

  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 paragraph with a clear list of operations. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded: 'Execute git operations with compact, optimized output'.

  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 variety of operations and no output schema, the description covers each operation's output format. It could mention more about confirmation prompts or error handling, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

  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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant meaning: it explains each operation's output style (e.g., 'compact summary' for status, 'filtered hunks' for diff) and notes the filter_level parameter's 'passthrough' for raw output.

  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 'Execute git operations with compact, optimized output' and lists specific operations (status, diff, log, commit, etc.), distinguishing this tool from siblings like filtered_shell by emphasizing optimized output.

  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 git operations needing compact output) by listing supported operations and their formats. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage or mention alternatives, though siblings hint at different use cases.

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