Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• boost_fansA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that it runs fans at 100%, is temporary with a default duration, and reverts automatically. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Could mention what 'reverts' means (e.g., to previous state?), but it's clear enough.

  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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines action and default, second gives use cases and behavior. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Covers purpose, usage, duration, revert behavior. With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor gap: revert behavior could be more precise.

  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 covers parameter fully with description. Description adds context about limited time and default, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline score 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?

  Clearly states it runs all fans at 100% for a limited time, a specific verb-resource-action with distinct behavior. Differentiated from siblings which query status or set auto/specific speeds.

  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?

  Explicitly mentions ideal use cases (pre-cooling before compile, video export, LLM inference burst). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context of siblings implies alternatives for granular control.

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

• get_thermal_statusA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Description fully discloses the tool is a read operation and details the output data. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it is transparent about behavior and does not contradict any implicit assumptions.

  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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

  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?

  No output schema, but description comprehensively lists return fields. Parameter count is zero, so complexity is low. Description covers all necessary context for a read-only monitoring tool.

  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?

  No parameters in the input schema, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description doesn't need to add parameter information; it is appropriately concise on this dimension.

  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?

  Title and description clearly state it reads the thermal state, listing specific data points (sensor temps, fan RPM, power draw, fan-control state). Distinguishes from sibling tools like boost_fans and set_fan_auto by being a read-only status tool.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before and after changing fan speeds, or to decide whether pre-cooling is worthwhile.' Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• set_fan_autoA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses immediate release and handoff to macOS (thermalmonitord), which implies safe behavior, but lacks details on potential side effects or prerequisites.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with key action and purpose, every sentence adds value with no waste.

  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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it, making it complete for an AI agent.

  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?

  There are zero parameters (100% schema coverage), and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

  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 'release' and resource 'manual fan control', and clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_fan_speed and boost_fans by indicating it returns control to macOS.

  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 states 'Use when the heavy workload is done,' providing implicit context for when to use, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, though siblings make this inferable.

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

• set_fan_speedA
  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 behavioral traits: manual mode, clamping to safe range, TTL expiration, and a failsafe at 102°C. This covers safety and auto-revert behaviors comprehensively.

  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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations, expiration behavior, failsafe, and a typical use case. No redundant sentences.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: manual mode setup, parameter meaning, clamping, TTL, failsafe, and typical usage. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: the relationship between rpm and percent (percent mapped to min-max range), the mutual exclusivity, and that values are clamped to safe range. It also clarifies that omitting fan applies to all fans.

  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's purpose: 'Put the Mac's fans into manual mode at a given speed.' It specifies the resource ('Mac's fans') and the action ('manual mode'), and distinguishes from siblings like boost_fans, get_thermal_status, and set_fan_auto.

  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 a typical use case ('raise fans BEFORE starting a heavy build/inference job') and explains the automatic revert after ttl_seconds. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like boost_fans or set_fan_auto.

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