Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• extract-stringsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it reports 'bounded real string output' and includes a caveat that 'Indicators are not proof of malware.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or limitations like large files.

  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 cover the command, output types, and a caveat. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or 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?

  For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, the nature of output (bounded strings plus indicators), and a necessary caution. It is moderately complete, though it omits usage guidance vs siblings.

  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 has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter is filePath. The description adds minimal semantic context by referring to it as an 'evidence file,' but it does not clarify path requirements, file formats, or error behavior.

  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 'Run GNU strings -n 6 against an evidence file' with a specific command and target. It also mentions the output indicators, making it distinct from siblings like extract-metadata and analyze-memory-dump.

  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 on evidence files but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool. It lacks a clear 'when to use this vs extract-metadata or analyze-memory-dump' statement.

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

• extract-metadataA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by stating it runs external analysis tools, calculates a hash, and interprets extension/MIME mismatches (including the crucial clarification that mismatches are not malware). However, it does not explicitly confirm side effects or permissions, which is a minor gap.

  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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary actions and then add a key interpretive note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

  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 tool is relatively straightforward, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the hash value, MIME type, metadata fields) or error handling. It adequately covers the 'why' and the analytical interpretation but leaves the return value unspecified for the agent.

  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 has one parameter (filePath) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description references 'evidence file' which gives context to the parameter's role, but it does not explain format, constraints, or acceptable values beyond the schema's minLength. This partially compensates but leaves room for improvement.

  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 specifies the tool's function: run real file and ExifTool analysis, calculate SHA-256, and compare extension with MIME type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract-strings and analyze-memory-dump by outlining unique actions and the analytical goal.

  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 use for forensic evidence files needing metadata extraction and file-type discrepancy checks. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• analyze-memory-dumpA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: 'bounded' suggests limits, 'real Volatility analysis' clarifies it is genuine analysis, 'Returns plugin-level failures honestly' discloses error handling, and 'malfind hits require analyst review' alerts the user to follow-up needed.

  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 deliver all essential information with no filler. Key points are front-loaded: what it does, where it operates, and notable behaviors (honest failures, analyst review).

  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 (single parameter, no output schema) and good annotations, the description covers the essential context: scope, location, behavior on failures, and analyst involvement. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema may make that less critical.

  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 description covers 100% of the parameter (filePath) with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces 'Windows memory dump' and 'evidence root', which slightly supplements the schema, but does not add new semantic details beyond what is already provided.

  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 a specific action ('Perform bounded, real Volatility analysis') on a specific resource ('Windows memory dump inside the evidence root'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on memory dump analysis rather than metadata or string extraction.

  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 applies to Windows memory dumps within the evidence root. It also hints at suitable scenarios by noting that failures are returned honestly and malfind hits require analyst review. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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