Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_file_contentsA
  4.4/5.0
  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. It discloses the use of ripgrep, return type with matches and metadata, and error cases. However, it does not mention potential performance issues with large directories or default behavior like respecting .gitignore, which would be helpful.

  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 well-structured: a concise one-line summary, a brief paragraph about the tool, a detailed argument list, return/error info, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Despite 7 parameters and only 2 required, the description covers all parameters, return type, and errors. The presence of an output schema (mentioned) reduces the need to detail return fields. An example is provided. For a tool of this complexity, it is very complete.

  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?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions in JSON. The description compensates fully by listing all 7 parameters with clear explanations of their purpose and defaults. Examples further clarify usage.

  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 starts with a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('file contents'), specifying the action of pattern searching across a directory or file. It distinguishes from sibling tools (execute_command, list_processes, kill_process) which serve entirely different purposes.

  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 explains how to use the tool (regex search, file type filters, context lines) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. However, siblings are unrelated, so the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable.

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

• kill_processA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: graceful and forced termination, timeout handling, security requirements (PROCEXEC_ENABLE_KILL), permission errors, system-critical protection, and sanitized errors.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, etc.) and examples. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; minor trimming could improve conciseness.

  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?

  Covers all aspects: parameters, return values, error handling, security, and examples. Output schema exists but description already explains return fields; fully adequate.

  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 has 0% description coverage; the description adds full semantics for all parameters: pid (>=1), force (default false), timeout_seconds (range 0.1-30.0, default 5.0, ignored if force).

  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 'Terminate a process by PID' with specific methods (graceful/forced), and is distinct from sibling tools like execute_command or list_processes.

  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?

  It provides context for when to use (stuck/hung processes) and differentiates graceful vs forced termination, but lacks explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, which is acceptable given their distinct purposes.

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

• list_processesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses security handling (permission errors, no sensitive leaks), performance targets (<2s), error types (SanitizedError), and edge cases (zombie processes). It also describes the output structure, making agent behavior predictable.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Security, Performance, Examples) and front-loads the key action. It is slightly lengthy but each section earns its place, providing necessary detail without redundancy.

  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?

  Despite an output schema existing (context signal), the description still clarifies the return fields (ListProcessesOutput) and covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, errors, security, performance. Nothing obvious is missing for a process listing tool.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, this document compensates fully. Each parameter is explained: name_filter (case-insensitive substring), sort_by (enum with direction), limit (max 1000, default 100). The description adds value beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

  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 starts with 'List running processes with optional filtering and sorting,' which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (running processes). It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like execute_command, search_file_contents, and kill_process, which have different purposes.

  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?

  While the description does not explicitly contrast with siblings, it provides clear context for when to use the tool, including detailed parameter usage and security/performance considerations. Siblings are sufficiently different that explicit exclusions are less critical.

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

• execute_commandA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Comprehensively covers safety features (no shell injection, timeout, output limits, path validation, sanitized errors), return type, and exceptions. No annotations provided, so description fully shoulders the 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?

  Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then detailed sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Security, Examples). Every section adds value without redundancy; appropriate length for a safety-critical tool.

  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 four parameters, one required, and existence of output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, return type, and exceptions completely. No gaps.

  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?

  Although input schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section defines each parameter with examples, defaults, and constraints (e.g., timeout max, capture_output default), fully compensating.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Execute a command safely with timeout and output limits'. Specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings by focusing on command execution rather than file or process management.

  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 and examples for typical use cases, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (search_file_contents, list_processes, kill_process) for when to avoid this tool.

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