Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ssh_transferB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions multi-host support and does not disclose file overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, error handling for unreachable hosts, or result format. This is insufficient for a mutation-heavy operation.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

  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 multi-host file transfer tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify success/failure return behavior, per-host handling, and side effects. It only states basic functionality, leaving significant gaps for an 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond restating upload/download capability, leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.

  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 function: 'Transfer files between local machine and remote SSH hosts.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of multi-host upload/download distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_list_hosts and ssh_execute.

  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 file transfers but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to ssh_list_hosts and ssh_execute. The multi-host support hints at use cases but does not say 'use this instead of X.'

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

• ssh_executeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions concurrency and that results are returned, but fails to warn that arbitrary commands may be destructive, lacks details on error handling, and does not describe the response structure. This is a significant gap for a command-execution tool.

  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 two short sentences that immediately state the action and key behavioral trait (concurrency). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the result format, error behavior, or authentication prerequisites. For a tool that executes arbitrary commands across multiple hosts, this is under-specified and leaves an agent uncertain about what to expect.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to since the schema covers everything. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Execute') and resource ('SSH hosts'), and further clarifies scope by mentioning concurrent execution and per-host results. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings (ssh_list_hosts for listing, ssh_transfer for transferring files).

  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 clearly implies the tool is for running shell commands on hosts, which is distinct from listing hosts or transferring files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

• ssh_list_hostsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reads a local config file and returns host details, making its behavior clear. It does not mention edge cases like missing config, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

  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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then details the return value, achieving high 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?

  For a simple, no-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (host names, addresses, users, connection details). It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

  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 zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate given the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

  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 it lists all available SSH hosts from ~/.ssh/config, with a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_execute and ssh_transfer by focusing on read-only host discovery.

  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 on what the tool does and what it returns, implying it is for discovering hosts before executing commands or transferring files. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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