Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delegateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'clean Codex exec' and 'own persona/profile', which hint at isolation and customization, but it does not disclose any side effects, return behavior, or whether the operation modifies the workspace. Given the presence of sandbox_mode and approval_policy parameters, the absence of safety/permission context is a significant gap.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It gets to the point immediately. However, it may be overly concise given the tool's complexity, but for what it covers, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

  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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how results are returned, whether the operation is synchronous, or what the sandbox_mode and approval_policy values imply. The description only covers the basic idea of delegation, leaving the agent to guess about critical aspects of invocation.

  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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only hints at 'persona/profile' and implies a 'task', but provides no meaning for cwd, mirror_repo, sandbox_mode, approval_policy, or how these interact. The description fails to explain the key configuration parameters that an AI agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('a named sub-agent'), and adds meaningful context about executing as a clean Codex exec with its own persona/profile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_batch (which implies batch processing) and list_agents/validate_agents (which are management operations).

  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 does not mention that delegate_batch should be used for batch operations, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is from the tool name and sibling names, which is not explicit.

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

• delegate_batchB
  3.4/5.0
  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. It only reveals that multiple sub-agents run in parallel, but omits any details about side effects, permission requirements, concurrency limits, error handling, or the operational impact of the sub-agents themselves. Given the parameters for sandbox_mode and approval_policy, this is a significant transparency gap.

  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, compact sentence: 'Run multiple sub-agents in parallel.' It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, contains no extraneous words, and every word adds meaning. This is ideal conciseness.

  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?

  The tool has 8 parameters, two enums, no annotations, and no output schema, making it a complex tool. Yet the description provides only the core action. It omits critical operational context such as how tasks are distributed, what the return value is, what permissions are needed, and how the sandbox_mode and approval_policy affect execution. This is grossly insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the 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%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. The phrase 'multiple sub-agents' hints at batch behavior but provides no information about required fields like 'agent' and 'task' or optional ones like 'persona' and 'profile'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 with a specific verb 'Run' followed by the resource 'multiple sub-agents' and the scope 'in parallel'. This fully distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'delegate', which likely runs a single agent, and from list/validate tools. It immediately conveys what the tool does.

  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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to run multiple sub-agents concurrently. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the name 'delegate_batch' and the phrase 'multiple sub-agents' imply it is the batch variant of 'delegate'. This is clear context without exclusions.

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

• validate_agentsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format (errors/warnings per file) but does not mention side effects, safety (read-only vs. mutating), or permission requirements. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

  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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and output in a well-structured manner.

  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 has low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and output. However, the lack of parameter explanation and absence of annotations means the description is not fully complete, though it is sufficient for basic understanding.

  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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'dir' parameter. While 'agent files' gives a clue that 'dir' may be a directory containing agent files, it does not state its role, default behavior, or whether it is required, leaving the parameter under-specified.

  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 'validate' with a clear resource 'agent files' and specifies output 'report errors/warnings per file'. It is distinct from sibling tools like delegate and list_agents, which involve different actions.

  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 states only what the tool does, not when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context comparing to sibling tools are provided, so usage guidance is entirely absent.

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

• list_agentsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data sources (built-ins, custom agents dir) and indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or any ordering/filtering details.

  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, front-loaded with the action, concise, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does and where data comes from. It does not explicitly describe the return value structure, but that is largely implied. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned, which slightly reduces 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?

  There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate here.

  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 'List' with a clear resource 'available sub-agents' and a scope 'from built-ins and custom agents dir'. This distinguishes it from siblings like delegate and validate_agents, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for discovering available agents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delegate or validate_agents. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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