Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_testsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing normalization behavior ('paths, durations, timestamps and colour codes removed'), reproducibility ('two identical runs produce identical text'), and the return format ('verdict plus both normalized and raw output'). These behavioral details are not present in the annotations.

  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 primary action, and every clause adds meaningful detail (fixed environment, timeout, normalization, return output). It is concise without being under-specified.

  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 behavioral and output aspects well, and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, it omits parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance, leaving gaps for a 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage.

  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 17% (only 'command' has a description). The description mentions 'fixed environment' and 'wall clock timeout' but does not map these to the 'env', 'timeoutMs', or other parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

  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 action: 'Runs a command in a workspace under a fixed environment and a wall clock timeout, then parses the output into a pass/fail summary with failing test names.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling file-operation tools like read_workspace and write_files.

  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 it is for running tests but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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

• destroy_workspaceA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already disclose destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that it deletes 'everything in it,' specifying the full scope of destruction. This goes beyond the annotation and provides valuable transparency without contradicting the structured data.

  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 long and immediately states the primary action ('Deletes a workspace and everything in it'). The second sentence adds a valuable idempotency note. No wasted words or unnecessary detail.

  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 simplicity (one required parameter), the annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is largely complete. It covers the destructive scope and idempotency, which are the main behavioral aspects. It might mention reversibility or permissions, but these are not critical given the annotations.

  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?

  The schema has only one parameter (workspaceId) with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description does not explain the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name alone. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, resulting in a low score.

  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 function: 'Deletes a workspace and everything in it.' It uses a specific verb ('deletes'), resource ('workspace'), and scope ('everything in it'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_workspace, create_workspace, write_files, and run_tests.

  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 usage as the destructive operation for workspaces. It also provides a clear usage condition: 'Safe to call on an id that no longer exists,' which is a useful guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the context with siblings makes the intended use clear.

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

• read_workspaceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses additional behavioral traits: node_modules and .git are excluded from listings, listings are sorted, and repeated calls match. This adds valuable context about output stability and hidden filters.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds information: listing, file content, exclusions, sorting. No fluff.

  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?

  The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the need for return-value or safety details. The description covers the two main use cases and relevant edge cases (exclusions, deterministic ordering). It leaves out error handling (e.g., missing file) but that is not critical given the schema and simplicity.

  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 already documents the 'path' parameter well ('Omit to list all files'). The description reinforces this but adds little about the 'workspaceId' parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description could have compensated more for the undocumented workspaceId, but the context makes its purpose obvious.

  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 specific verbs ('Lists', 'returns') and clearly identifies the resource (files in a workspace). It distinguishes between the two main behaviors (listing vs. file content) and, given sibling tools like write_files and destroy_workspace, the purpose is unambiguous.

  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 context is clear: use this to read or list workspace files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. Since it is the only read-oriented tool among the siblings, the use case is implied rather than explicit.

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

• write_filesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description adds valuable context: parent-directory creation, path safety (relative and inside workspace), and atomic all-or-nothing behavior. It does not contradict annotations and improves transparency beyond the structured hints.

  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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: basic behavior, path constraints, and atomicity. There is no redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, workspace requirement, path safety, and atomicity. It is complete for a 2-parameter write tool and does not need to explain return values.

  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?

  Schema covers the 'files' parameter with a good example, but 'workspaceId' has no schema description. The description compensates by implying workspaceId must reference an existing workspace and by adding constraints on the file paths (relative, inside workspace). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 verb and resource: writes/overwrites files in an existing workspace. It distinguishes itself from siblings (read_workspace, create_workspace, run_tests, destroy_workspace) by focusing on file-level mutations rather than workspace lifecycle or read operations.

  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 gives clear context (existing workspace, relative path constraints, atomicity) and implies when to use it (writing files), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools. This is clear context without exclusions.

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

• create_workspaceA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description adds key behavioral context: the workspace is isolated and temporary, returns an id, can be seeded with files, and must be explicitly destroyed. It explains that all paths are relative to the workspace, which is vital for correct usage. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 action, then the optional seeding, then the crucial usage context and cleanup instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's modest complexity (one optional parameter, nested object), the description is fully complete. It covers the lifecycle, id-based addressing, path semantics, and cleanup, while the output schema (not shown but present) handles the return value. The description is sufficient for correct invocation in the context of sibling tools.

  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 already describes the 'files' parameter with high coverage (100%), including an example. The description adds 'Optionally seeds it with files,' which reinforces optionality but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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 creates an isolated temporary directory and returns its id. It also mentions optional file seeding, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_workspace, write_files, run_tests, and destroy_workspace. The verb 'creates' plus the resource 'workspace' and the specific behavior are unambiguous.

  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?

  The description explicitly says every other tool addresses a workspace by this id and paths are relative to it, making it clear this is the entry point. It also instructs to call destroy_workspace when finished, providing explicit cleanup guidance and distinguishing when to use this tool versus when to stop using it.

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