Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• parallel_executeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Mentions automatic distribution based on node availability and load, and return format, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or resource effects.

  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?

  Well-structured with bullet points for use cases, but slightly redundant (mentions distribution twice). Generally concise for the content.

  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?

  Covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior for a simple one-parameter tool, but lacks details on error handling, limits, or output schema specifics.

  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%; description only repeats that commands is a list of bash commands, adding minimal meaning beyond the property name.

  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 action (execute multiple commands in parallel across cluster) and distinguishes from sibling tools like cluster_bash (likely single command) and cluster_status (status).

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases (test suites, parallel builds, batch processing, load testing) and describes distribution behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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

• offload_toA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden, but it only states routing and returns execution result, lacking details on safety, authentication, rate limits, or side effects of command execution.

  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?

  Structured with bullet points, front-loaded purpose, every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

  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 main aspects: purpose, use cases, nodes, parameters, and return value (execution result); output schema exists. Missing error handling or failure modes.

  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 coverage is 0%, description adds meaning by explaining command is a bash command and node_id is target node ID, and lists available nodes, but lacks details on format, constraints, or examples.

  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?

  Explicitly states routing command to specific cluster node, lists use cases and available nodes, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like cluster_bash, cluster_status, and parallel_execute.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (Linux commands, specific architecture, load balancing, debugging) and lists available nodes, though does not directly compare to siblings or mention when not to use.

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

• cluster_bashA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It reveals routing logic (based on cluster load, command characteristics, node capabilities) and states that heavy commands are offloaded while simple ones run locally. It mentions returning execution result with node info and output. It lacks details on failure handling or timeouts, but overall provides solid 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 concisely structured with bullet points for routing criteria and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded: the first line states the core function. No wasted words.

  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?

  The description covers routing logic, parameter details, and return value. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return format. It is complete for a tool with 4 parameters, though it could mention error scenarios or security considerations. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: command (required), requires_os/requires_arch (force specific OS/architecture), auto_route (default true). It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing the purpose of requires_os/requires_arch and the auto-routing default. However, it does not enumerate all possible values for requires_os/requires_arch.

  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 'Execute bash command with automatic cluster routing', specifying the action (execute), resource (bash command), and core behavior (automatic routing). It distinguishes from siblings like cluster_status (status check) and offload_to (manual offloading) by emphasizing automatic routing.

  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 explains when to use the tool: for bash commands with automatic routing. It categorizes commands as 'heavy' (offloaded) or 'simple' (local). It also describes parameters like requires_os and requires_arch for forcing specific nodes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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

• cluster_statusA
  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 responsibility. It discloses real-time nature, listed metrics, and JSON output. It omits details like refresh rate or potential latency, but these are minor for a read-only 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?

  Description is well-structured with a brief opening, bullet list of metrics, and actionable use cases. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

  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 parameterless tool with an output schema mentioned, the description covers purpose, metrics, use cases, and return format. It fully informs the agent's decision alongside sibling tools.

  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 exist, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds no parameter info (none needed). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which 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?

  Description clearly states it gets cluster status and load distribution with specific metrics. It is distinct from sibling tools like cluster_bash (execution) and offload_to/parallel_execute (task routing), making it easy to select.

  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?

  Explicit usage scenarios are listed (check health, determine optimal node, debug, monitor). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the provided contexts are clear and sufficient. Missing exclusions reduces to 4.

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