Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_listA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation tool ('updates,' 'replacing'), which implies it modifies data. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds some value by clarifying the replacement behavior but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section. Each sentence earns its place by providing clear guidance. However, the bullet points could be slightly more concise, and there's minor redundancy (e.g., 'modify the contents' overlaps with 'add or remove items'), preventing a perfect 5.

  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?

  Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions. With no output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns, which is a significant omission for a mutation operation.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'list_id' as 'The list ID returned by create_list' and 'items' as 'The new array of items to replace the existing list contents.' The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'replacing its items with a new array,' which aligns with the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it further.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates an existing list by replacing its items with a new array.' This specifies the verb ('updates'), resource ('existing list'), and scope ('replacing its items with a new array'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_list' or 'delete_list' beyond the 'existing list' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

  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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear context: 'To modify the contents of an existing list,' 'To add or remove items from a list,' and 'To reorder items in a list.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'create_list' for new lists instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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

• get_listA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Retrieves'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety or mention potential errors (e.g., if list_id is invalid). It adds some context about checking existence, but lacks details on return format, pagination, or rate limits.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

  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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter context. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or return format.

  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%, with the schema fully documenting the single parameter list_id. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that list_id comes from create_list. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves the items in an existing list') and resource ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_list, delete_list, and list_all_lists. It explicitly mentions retrieving items rather than metadata or performing operations on the list.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit guidance with three bullet points: inspecting contents before processing, verifying items, and checking existence. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_all_lists (for listing lists) or run_agent_across_list (for processing items).

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

• delete_listA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Deletes'), which is critical information. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, error handling (e.g., what happens if the list doesn't exist), or confirmation prompts. The memory-freeing note adds some context but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Deletes an existing list by its ID.'), followed by a structured 'WHEN TO USE' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance without unnecessary details, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

  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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidelines, and implies behavioral traits (destructive). However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or side effects, which would be beneficial for a deletion tool. The high schema coverage helps compensate, but some gaps remain.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'list_id' parameter well-documented as 'The list ID returned by create_list.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's clarity about deletion purpose slightly enhances understanding, warranting a score of 4.

  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 ('Deletes') and resource ('an existing list by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_list', 'get_list', and 'update_list' by focusing on deletion rather than creation, retrieval, or modification.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool ('To clean up lists that are no longer needed' and 'To free up memory after processing is complete'). This helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'update_list' for modifications or 'list_all_lists' for viewing, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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

• list_all_listsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (lists with item counts) but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, sorted, or filtered. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist, but leaves operational details unspecified.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value - first stating what the tool does, then providing concrete usage scenarios. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose and usage scenarios. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of list objects, what fields are included beyond ID and item count) which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

  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 (schema coverage 100%), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter details, which aligns with the zero-parameter baseline expectation.

  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 specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all existing lists and their item counts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_list' (which retrieves a specific list) by emphasizing comprehensive listing of all lists with metadata.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit guidance with three concrete scenarios: seeing all available lists, finding forgotten list IDs, and checking list counts. This clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like 'get_list' for specific list retrieval.

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

• create_listA
  4.5/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the list persists for the session duration, items can be file paths, URLs, identifiers, or strings, and the workflow involves using the returned list_id with other tools. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or specific constraints beyond persistence.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, workflow, example) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized, but the example section is somewhat detailed, which slightly reduces conciseness while adding clarity.

  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 no annotations, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, workflow, and parameters well, but lacks details on error handling or output specifics (e.g., format of list_id), which would enhance completeness for a tool with no output schema.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'items' parameter semantics: it specifies that items can be 'file paths, URLs, identifiers, or any strings' and explains their purpose ('substituted into commands or prompts'), providing context beyond the schema's basic 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 purpose: 'Creates a named list of items for parallel processing.' It specifies the verb ('creates'), resource ('named list of items'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than deletion, retrieval, or usage of lists.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly provides usage guidelines with a 'WHEN TO USE' section, listing specific scenarios like before running shell commands or AI agents across multiple items. It also references sibling tools (run_shell_across_list, run_agent_across_list) as alternatives for subsequent steps, clearly differentiating when to use this tool versus others.

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

• run_agent_across_listA
  4.5/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: parallel processing ('batches of 10 parallel processes'), permission skipping ('automatic permission skipping enabled'), output handling ('Output streams directly to files'), completion behavior ('waits for all agents to complete before returning'), and post-completion steps ('Read the stdout files...'). However, it lacks details on error handling beyond checking stderr files, such as retry logic or failure modes.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (e.g., 'WHEN TO USE', 'AVAILABLE AGENTS', 'HOW IT WORKS'), making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, with each sentence adding useful information. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., permission-skipping mentioned multiple times), slightly reducing efficiency.

  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 complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter usage, and post-execution steps. It covers the tool's workflow and dependencies (e.g., requires a previously created list). The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by explaining output handling and file naming conventions.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining variable substitution ('Use {{item}} in your prompt') with examples, clarifying how 'prompt' interacts with list items. It also lists available agents with details on their permission-skipping behaviors, enhancing understanding beyond the enum in the schema. However, it doesn't add significant context for 'list_id' beyond what the schema states.

  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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Spawns an AI coding agent for each item in a previously created list.' It specifies the verb ('spawns'), resource ('AI coding agent'), and scope ('for each item in a previously created list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_shell_across_list' which handles shell commands rather than AI agents.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit guidance: 'Performing complex code analysis, refactoring, or generation across multiple files,' 'Tasks that require AI reasoning rather than simple shell commands,' and 'When you need to delegate work to multiple AI agents working in parallel.' It also implicitly contrasts with 'run_shell_across_list' by emphasizing AI reasoning over shell commands.

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

• create_list_from_shellA
  4.6/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it runs a shell command, splits stdout by newlines to create list items, filters out empty lines, and returns a list_id for use with other tools. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or security implications (e.g., command injection risks), which would be needed for a perfect score.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (description, WHEN TO USE, EXAMPLES, WORKFLOW), each sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no annotations, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, examples, and workflow. However, it doesn't specify the return value format (e.g., what list_id is or how to use it), which is a minor gap since there's no output schema to compensate.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the command's stdout is split by newlines to create list items, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's example. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details, keeping it slightly above baseline.

  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: 'Creates a list by running a shell command and parsing its newline-delimited output.' It specifies the verb ('creates'), resource ('list'), and mechanism ('shell command'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_list (manual specification) and run_shell_across_list (operates on existing lists).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists three scenarios for usage, including 'As an alternative to manually specifying items in create_list,' which directly compares it to a sibling tool. This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, fulfilling the highest scoring criteria.

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

• run_shell_across_listA
  4.8/5.0
  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 by disclosing key behavioral traits: it runs commands in batches of 10 parallel processes, streams output to files, waits for completion, and handles variable substitution with proper escaping. It also explains post-execution steps like reading stdout/stderr files, adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (e.g., WHEN TO USE, HOW IT WORKS) and front-loaded key information. While slightly verbose, each sentence earns its place by adding necessary details like batch size and file naming, making it efficient for understanding without waste.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (parallel execution, file output) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and post-execution steps, providing all needed context for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without gaps.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining variable substitution with $item, providing examples (e.g., 'cat $item'), and detailing how items are shell-escaped, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

  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 specific verbs ('executes a shell command for each item in a previously created list') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it operates on lists created by other tools (like create_list) and differs from run_agent_across_list. It explicitly mentions batch processing with parallel execution.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., running same command across multiple files, batch processing) and implies alternatives by referencing sibling tools like create_list for list creation. It clearly sets the context for usage with shell commands on collections.

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