Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• session_destroyB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description lacks behavioral details beyond 'destroy' and 'free its resources.' No annotations are present to fill the gap; key information like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on other sessions is 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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

  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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, error behavior, or post-destroy state. It is under-specified given the lack of 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% (the one parameter is described in the schema as 'Session id from session_create'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Destroy a session') and the resource ('session'), with the added detail of freeing resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like session_create or session_checkpoint.

  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 (e.g., session_checkpoint or session_restore). There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as needing an active session.

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

• session_checkpointsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering behavior but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe other traits like pagination or data limits. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

  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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently without any wasted words.

  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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is functional. However, it lacks details about return format or what fields each checkpoint contains, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand usage.

  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% for the single parameter session_id, which is already described as 'Session id from session_create.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'List', the resource 'checkpoints for a remote session', and the ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_checkpoint (likely single checkpoint) and session_create.

  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 when needing to list checkpoints for a session, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like session_checkpoint, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• session_restoreA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool 'does not undo side effects,' which is a crucial behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it could further clarify whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires an active session.

  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 short sentences, front-loading the core functionality and then adding a key behavioral caveat. No wasted words.

  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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the main action, default behavior, and a limitation (side effects). A minor gap is the lack of information about return values or error handling.

  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?

  Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly reiterating the default behavior for checkpoint_id. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 identifies the action ('restore'), the target resource ('remote session's workspace files'), and a key condition ('omit checkpoint_id to restore the most recent'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_checkpoint (create) and session_destroy (destroy).

  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 by mentioning the default behavior for checkpoint_id, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or any prerequisites or limitations.

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

• session_checkpointA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses dependencies (git), scope (files only), and return format ({checkpoint_id}). Could add detail on persistence or failure modes, but sufficient for safe usage.

  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 that front-load the purpose and immediately add requirements and limitations. Every phrase adds value; no filler.

  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?

  In the absence of an output schema, the description specifies the return value. It explains what the tool does and its constraints. Missing details on checkpoint lifecycle or restoration, but adequate for a simple 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%, so both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

  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 states it takes a workspace checkpoint (snapshot of files) on a remote session. It clarifies it's a file-only operation and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its scope and requirement for git.

  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?

  Provides clear context: requires git on remote host, undoes files only, no side effects. Implies when to use (file snapshot) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like session_restore or session_checkpoints.

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

• session_createA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: session creation, transport auth, workspace requirement for remote checkpoints, auto_snapshot dependency, output_budget. It does not cover error scenarios but is otherwise transparent.

  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 dense paragraph that front-loads purpose. It could be more structured with bullet points for transport types, but it is efficient and contains no extraneous text.

  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?

  With 15 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers critical behaviors: transport specifics, workspace/checkpoint rules, output_budget. It lacks details on session_id format or error handling, but is adequate for tool selection.

  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%, but description adds significant meaning: explains combined parameter requirements (e.g., transport + host/user/password/key_path), workspace necessity for checkpoints, and output_budget reuse from session_exec. This goes beyond schema 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 'Open a stateful shell session' and specifies the three transport types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (session_destroy, session_exec) by being the creation action.

  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 requirements for each transport (ssh needs host/user/password or key_path, docker needs container) and explains workspace/checkpoint conditions. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.

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

• session_execA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the output shaping behavior (line-based, client-side, after secret redaction, no effect on exit code/side effects) and the inclusion of a budget report. Since no annotations exist, this adds value, but it omits details on error handling, session state mutations beyond shaping, and environment assumptions.

  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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence provides essential detail: return format, budget parameter structure, behavioral guarantees. No wasted words; clear and efficient.

  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?

  With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return format, budget parameter details, and key behavioral traits. However, it does not explain error cases, session lifecycle prerequisites (session_id from session_create), or the execution environment (cwd, env), which would enhance completeness.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the budget structure (grep, keep, max_chars), processing order, client-side execution, and the budget report, which goes beyond the schema's static definitions.

  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 'Run a command in a session' with a specific verb and resource, and details the return format (structured ExecResult JSON). Among sibling tools (session_create, session_destroy, etc.), this is the only command execution tool, making its purpose distinct.

  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 implicitly indicates use for executing commands in a session, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. With clear sibling names, the context is sufficient, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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