Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ask_codexB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. Merely states it returns an answer without elaboration.

  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?

  Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence is clear; second adds usage guidance. Could be slightly more efficient, but overall well-structured for a simple tool.

  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?

  Lacks details on return value format despite having an output schema. No information on how Codex processes the question or what happens with the timeout. Minimal guidance for an agent to use effectively.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description does not explain the 'question' or 'timeout' parameters at all, adding zero value beyond the parameter names.

  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 the verb 'ask' and the resource 'Codex pane', with explicit mention of returning an answer. Distinguishes from sibling 'ask_claude' by naming Codex specifically.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use this from Claude when you want Codex's opinion, a code review, or to delegate execution to it', providing clear context and implicitly contrasting with alternatives.

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

• broadcastB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of not waiting for a reply, but omits other behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or whether the message is stored. This is adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

  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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete. It covers the core action and behavioral note, but does not explain 'both panes' or provide any usage context. It meets the minimum viability for a simple tool.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'message' but adds no detail beyond the schema's type string. It does not explain format, constraints, or expected values, which is insufficient for a parameter with no description in the schema.

  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 pushes a message to both panes without waiting for a reply, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_claude and ask_codex, which likely expect replies, and queue_status for status checks.

  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 over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• ask_claudeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states it returns an answer, but does not disclose potential side effects, timeout behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

  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 with only two short sentences, no redundant information, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

  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 simple with 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks detail on the output format and usage constraints. An agent can infer basic usage but may miss nuances like timeout meaning or question style expectations.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the 'question' or 'timeout' parameters beyond what the schema provides. For a tool with 2 parameters and no enum constraints, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

  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 'Ask' and the resource 'Claude pane', specifying that it returns an answer. The sibling tool 'ask_codex' helps differentiate, 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly recommends using this tool for 'plan, design feedback, or a sanity check' from Codex, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool in favor of alternatives.

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

• queue_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description clearly indicates it is a non-destructive read (returning counts and completions). There is no behavior beyond what is described, and no contradictions. A slight deduction for not explicitly stating read-only nature.

  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 extremely concise: a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and context. No fluff or redundant information.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the tool's output. It could be considered complete for a simple status check, though mentioning any authentication or availability requirements would improve 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?

  The input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the return content (queue counts + recent completions). Baseline 4 is appropriate since the schema carries no burden.

  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 returns queue counts and recent completions, with 'debugging' context. It identifies the specific resource (queue status) and verb (return). It is well distinguished from siblings like ask_claude, ask_codex, and broadcast.

  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 for debugging via the parenthetical '(debugging)'. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use, but the siblings are sufficiently different, so the guidance is adequate but minimal.

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