Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• dsh_send_messageB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses blocking behavior and result content (assistant text, token usage), which is helpful. However, it omits the polling and timeout behavior hinted at by the parameters, and gives no error semantics.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, then adding key result details. No wasted words.

  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?

  The tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description leaves out parameter explanations and operational details like timeout behavior or session_id requirements. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter blocking tool.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The schema has 0% parameter coverage and the description does not explain any parameter. Only 'prompt' is contextually implied; session_id, timeout_s, and poll_interval_s are never described, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and roles.

  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 a specific verb 'Send' with a clear resource 'prompt to a DSH session' and adds important behavioral detail about blocking until completion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on session creation, stats, or resumption.

  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?

  Usage is implied: sending a prompt requires an existing session, so the user must know to create/resume one first. However, the description does not explicitly state prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent without clear guidance.

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

• dsh_get_session_statsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds useful detail by calling the projections 'cached', implying the data may not be real-time, and lists the fields returned. However, it does not disclose error behavior, session existence requirements, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics (though 'Fetch' implies it). With no annotations, the description partially but inadequately carries the transparency burden.

  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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and key specifics. No filler or redundancy, every word contributes to understanding.

  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?

  For a simple getter, the description covers the basic purpose and lists fields, but given there is no output schema, it does not explain what the projections mean or how they behave (e.g., staleness, availability). Usage context vs. alternatives is also missing, leaving the tool functional but not fully self-contained.

  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 input schema provides only a type for session_id with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'for a DSH session', which clarifies the parameter's reference, but does not explain the expected format, source, or how to obtain a valid session_id. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level description.

  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 ('Fetch') and the target ('cached projections for a DSH session'), naming specific fields (tokenUsage, sessionStats, contextPressure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dsh_create_session and dsh_send_message, which are write/action operations.

  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, such as when a session is active vs. cached, or when to call it in a workflow. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• dsh_resume_sessionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it verifies cached state and affects subsequent send_message calls, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the session_id is invalid), authentication requirements, or whether any state is mutated. This is adequate for a simple re-load tool but leaves gaps.

  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 purpose and immediately followed by a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

  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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the primary action and a key side effect. However, it omits what happens if the session is missing or invalid, and does not mention any prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this is a reasonable but not exhaustive description.

  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 a single string parameter 'session_id' with no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the format or required context of session_id, relying on the phrase 'existing DSH session' to imply its purpose. This adds little meaning beyond the schema, especially since the schema coverage is 0%.

  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 re-loads an existing DSH session and verifies cached state, using a specific verb ('re-load') and resource ('DSH session'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' sessions, which contrasts with dsh_create_session, and notes its role relative to dsh_send_message.

  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 provides clear context: it is for resuming an existing session, and it explicitly mentions that subsequent dsh_send_message calls reuse the prompt prefix, implying it should be called before send. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for new sessions), but the contrast with dsh_create_session is implicit.

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

• dsh_create_sessionA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key side effect ('auto-creates the workspace if missing') and the return value (sessionId), but omits potential error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the operation is safe/idempotent beyond auto-creation.

  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, and every word adds value—no filler or redundant phrasing.

  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 tool with 0 required parameters and full schema coverage, the description explains the core behavior (auto-create workspace) and output (sessionId), linking it to follow-up calls. It lacks error-handling or prerequisite details, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

  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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (model, provider, workspace_path, reasoning_effort). The description reinforces workspace_path's role with 'bound to a directory' but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 'Create' and the resource 'a new DSH session' bound to a directory, with the additional behavior 'auto-creates the workspace if missing' and the return value 'sessionId'. This distinguishes it from siblings like dsh_resume_session (resume) and dsh_list_workspaces (list).

  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 positions the tool as the entry point for starting a new session, noting it 'Returns the sessionId for follow-up tool calls', implying use before dsh_send_message or dsh_get_session_stats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the word 'new' and the sibling names make when-to-use clear.

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

• dsh_list_workspacesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description conveys a read-only listing behavior and adds context about the data source ('local dsh web UI'), but it does not disclose return format, sorting, pagination, or potential errors. For a simple list tool this is adequate, though not rich.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning and the tool's scope.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and where the data comes from. It is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies here.

  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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every DSH workspace') and clearly scopes to 'the local dsh web UI,' distinguishing it from session-focused sibling tools. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need all workspaces known to the local UI) and implies no exclusions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The sibling names are all session-related, so the use case is evident.

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