Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• statusB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the information returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it explain the meaning of 'pending output' or 'death reason'. This provides moderate transparency.

  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 concise sentence that directly lists the key elements. It has no fluff and is easy to skim, making it highly efficient.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description does enumerate the main returned topics, but it lacks details on data types, format, or how to interpret fields like 'pending output'. For a simple tool, it is mostly adequate, but a touch more context would improve 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

  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 enumerates specific status information (connection state, target, uptime, pending output, death reason), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (open, send, read, peek, close) by focusing on status rather than actions, though it lacks an explicit verb.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read or peek. The description only states what the tool returns, not the scenarios in which it should be invoked or any exclusions.

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

• readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds important context: it does not send anything, and it only returns output not already returned (same cursor semantics as send). However, it does not explicitly mention that it can auto-answer '--More--' prompts or has timeout/quiet behavior (though these are covered in parameter descriptions). It provides some transparency but could go further in describing the wait/collection 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 two short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence conveys meaningful information without redundancy. It is concise and efficiently structured, allowing an agent to quickly grasp the core function and key behavioral nuance.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, no annotations, but 4 well-documented parameters), the description provides adequate context for use: when to use it, its key behavior (cursor semantics), and that it does not send input. It could optionally explain the return value format, but since the tool collects output and the schema covers parameters, this is sufficient. It is almost as complete as the high-calibration example.

  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?

  The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It references 'more_limit' which is a concept from a previous tool, but that does not clarify the parameters themselves. Therefore, no extra value is added by the description.

  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: 'Collect further output without sending anything.' It uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('output'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send' by explicitly noting it does not send anything. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

  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 explicit use cases: 'For slow programs, or to continue after a `more_limit`.' This tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'peek' or 'status', though the mention of 'same cursor semantics as send' implies a relationship. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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

• peekA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical behavioral trait of not moving the read cursor, ensuring `send` and `read` return the same output. This goes beyond the schema and gives agents essential safety information.

  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 exceptionally concise, using only two sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and use case. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

  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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, its side-effect-free behavior, and when to use it. It could mention return format, but the context is sufficient for invocation.

  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?

  The input schema covers 100% of the parameter's meaning with 'How much recent scrollback to show.' The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-show recent scrollback without consuming it.' It also differentiates from sibling tools like `read` and `send` by explicitly noting that the read cursor does not move, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 clear use case: 'Use this to recover lost context.' It implicitly contrasts with `read` and `send` by explaining that their output is unaffected, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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

• closeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'hard-close', implying forceful termination, and states the consequence (freeing the line). It does not mention side effects like discarding queued data, but for a zero-parameter tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

  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, short sentence with a clear front-loaded verb ('Hard-close') and no fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

  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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It tells what the tool does and why, and the sibling context (open/send/read/peek/status) helps. It could mention any errors or irreversible nature, but the core is covered.

  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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to describe parameters, and nothing about parameters is missing.

  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 action (hard-close), the target (the line), and the intended outcome (frees it for the next connection). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, especially 'open', by conveying a forceful termination rather than a graceful one.

  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 implies usage: call this when you are finished with a line and want to release it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus keeping the line open.

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

• openA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses idempotency, server-owned connection that 'survives any gap between tool calls,' no automatic reconnection, session-death notification, and the requirement to send '~z' on a fresh line. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that significantly aids the agent.

  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 yet information-dense. It leads with a clear purpose, then adds essential behavioral caveats, and finishes with an actionable protocol note. Every sentence 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.

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a stateful connection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the connection lifecycle (open, idempotent reopen, server ownership, survival, no auto-reconnect, explicit reconnection), failure reporting ('you will be told'), and the initialization sequence (^Z). This is sufficient for an 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.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions ('Emulator host; defaults to the configured host' and similar). Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high, and the description need not compensate.

  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 specific action: 'Open the single TCP terminal line to the PDP-10.' This uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('single TCP terminal line to the PDP-10'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send, read, peek, status, and close.

  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 implies when to use the tool: to establish or re-establish the connection. It explains idempotent behavior ('if the line is already open this reports status instead of reconnecting') and the lack of auto-reconnect, guiding the agent to explicitly reopen if the session dies. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling 'status' tool as an alternative when only checking connection state, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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

• sendA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: automatic CR appending, newline normalization to CR, return of only output since the previous call, and the one-word end reason (matched, quiet, timeout, more_limit, dead). It also explains subtle ITS/DDT quirks (bare LF is a DDT command) and provides escape semantics, giving exceptional transparency.

  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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and then explains essential behavior in a streamlined paragraph. It is dense but every sentence provides unique value (CR behavior, return format, examples). It could be slightly more structured with bullets, but is appropriately concise for a complex tool.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (output since previous call plus an end reason) and enumerates possible end reasons. It covers all six parameters, escape syntax, and important edge cases (e.g., ~- marker, auto_more paging), making the description complete for correct invocation.

  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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing a strong baseline. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete usage examples (e.g., 'foo~ej' for DDT altmode) and explaining behavioral implications like CR handling and end reasons, which clarify how parameters affect outcomes.

  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 first sentence 'Send input to ITS and return the output it produced' uses a specific verb ('send') with a clear resource ('input to ITS') and outcome ('return the output'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read, peek, and status by focusing on the act of sending input.

  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 strong contextual guidance through examples such as send("~z") and send(":login rms", expect="@"), making it clear when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use read when you only need output'), so it stops short of a perfect score.

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