Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• geminiD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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. However, it only mentions executing the CLI and referring to help, without describing what the tool does (e.g., sends prompts to a model, manages sessions), its effects (e.g., creates responses, modifies session state), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured annotations.

  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 very brief with two short sentences, which is efficient but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, the second sentence 'Use help for details' shifts responsibility rather than providing useful information, reducing its effectiveness. It's front-loaded but lacks substantive content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's function, parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations. For a tool that likely interacts with a model or sessions, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

  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 none of the 4 parameters (prompt, sessionId, resetSession, model) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their purposes, or how they interact (e.g., sessionId vs. resetSession). This leaves all parameters completely unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Execute Gemini CLI' states the tool's action but is vague about what resource it operates on. It doesn't specify whether this is for querying a model, managing sessions, or another function, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'help' or 'listSessions'. The phrase 'Use help for details' suggests incomplete documentation rather than clear purpose.

  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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'Use help for details', implying that users should refer elsewhere for usage instructions. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'help' or 'listSessions', nor does it outline any prerequisites or contexts for invocation. This leaves the agent with little practical direction.

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

• pingC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Test connection' implies a diagnostic operation but doesn't reveal what happens during testing, what the expected response is, whether it requires authentication, or if it has side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 at just two words, with zero wasted language. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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?

  For a diagnostic tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'connection' means, what gets tested, what the response indicates, or how to interpret results. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

  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?

  The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. 'Test connection' doesn't mention the 'message' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Test connection' states a general purpose but is vague about what exactly is being tested. It doesn't specify what resource or system is being tested, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'help' or 'listSessions'. The verb 'test' is clear but the object 'connection' is ambiguous.

  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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'gemini', 'help', and 'listSessions', the agent has no indication of when 'ping' would be the appropriate choice.

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

• helpC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed documentation' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what kind of documentation (e.g., tool-specific, server-wide), format (e.g., text, structured data), or any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 'Get detailed documentation' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste, making it efficient for an agent to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed documentation' entails, the return format, or how it integrates with the server context (e.g., sibling tools like 'gemini'). For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get detailed documentation' states a clear purpose (retrieving documentation) but is vague about what documentation it retrieves. It doesn't specify whether it's system documentation, API documentation, or something else, and doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'listSessions' or 'ping' that might also provide informational outputs.

  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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this is appropriate compared to other informational tools like 'ping' (which might test connectivity) or 'listSessions' (which might list active sessions).

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

• listSessionsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List active sessions' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify what constitutes an 'active' session, whether there are permissions required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is perfectly concise at just three words ('List active sessions') with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a simple, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with the behavioral gaps noted above, it doesn't provide complete context about what 'active' means, how results are returned, or any operational constraints that might affect usage.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered by the schema, maintaining a clean baseline for parameterless tools.

  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 'List active sessions' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active sessions'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gemini', 'help', or 'ping', which appear to be unrelated functions rather than alternative session listing tools.

  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. While the sibling tools seem unrelated (e.g., 'gemini', 'help', 'ping'), there's no explicit mention of when this tool is appropriate or any prerequisites for its use.

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