Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_command_historyC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states it retrieves history but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), what data format or pagination is used, or any rate limits. The example response adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose statement. The example usage and response are relevant but could be more concise; however, they earn their place by providing practical context without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and includes examples, but lacks details on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are gaps for a 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the example usage illustrates how to use 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 tool's purpose with 'Get the history of executed commands', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_command' or 'ssh_execute', which are for executing commands rather than retrieving history.

  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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or provide context about prerequisites, such as whether commands need to have been executed first. The example usage is helpful but doesn't address usage scenarios.

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

• ssh_executeB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action and configuration but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by config but not stated), potential security risks, error handling, or output format. For a tool that executes remote commands with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The example and configuration details are relevant but could be more concise; the configuration block is lengthy and might be better summarized. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

  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?

  Given the complexity of SSH command execution, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic usage and configuration but omits essential context: authentication details, error scenarios, security implications, and what the tool returns (e.g., stdout, stderr, exit code). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('connectionId' and 'command'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it provides an example usage that illustrates parameter semantics but doesn't explain enum values for 'connectionId' or additional constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Execute a command') and resource ('on a remote host via SSH'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute_command' (likely local), 'get_command_history' (query), and 'ssh_disconnect' (connection management). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  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 context through the example and configuration details, suggesting it's for remote SSH execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_command' (presumably for local commands) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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

• execute_commandB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the tool executes commands but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output format looks like. The examples show input but not expected results, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it includes three lengthy code examples that could be condensed. While examples are helpful, they dominate the text and could be summarized more efficiently. The structure is logical but not optimally concise.

  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?

  Given the complexity of a command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on security implications, error handling, output format, and how it differs from sibling tools like ssh_execute. The examples provide input syntax but leave the agent guessing about behavioral outcomes and integration context.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each shell type, illustrating how parameters interact (e.g., shell-specific command syntax and working directory paths). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain all edge cases or optional behaviors.

  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 specific action ('Execute a command') and resource ('in the specified shell'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_command_history (which retrieves history) and ssh_execute (which executes over SSH). The three shell options are explicitly listed, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 providing examples for each shell type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_execute or get_command_history. There's no guidance on prerequisites, error handling, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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

• ssh_disconnectA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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. It states this is for 'cleanly close SSH connections' which implies a safe, controlled termination. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether active commands are interrupted), authentication requirements, or error conditions.

  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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, a helpful example, and a usage guideline - all in three sentences with zero wasted words. The example is appropriately formatted and directly relevant.

  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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of information about what happens after disconnection or potential error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

  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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameter is well-documented in the structured data. The description doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's in the schema, but the example usage provides helpful context for how the parameter should be used ('raspberry-pi' as an example value).

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('SSH server'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_execute' or mention that this is specifically for closing connections rather than executing commands.

  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 about when to use the tool ('when they're no longer needed') and includes an example usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it (e.g., vs keeping connections open for reuse).

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