Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hermes_healthA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool performs a network reachability check and returns gateway health status and version information. For a zero-parameter health probe, this is sufficient behavioral context, though it omits auth or rate-limit caveats.

  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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds concrete value about return contents.

  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?

  This is a simple, parameterless health-check tool. The description covers what it does and what it returns, an output schema exists, and there are no hidden parameters or complex behaviors. Nothing essential is missing.

  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 description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The input schema is empty, making this a healthy baseline without any param documentation burden.

  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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('remote Hermes Agent') with a health-focused purpose. It also states the return content, making it distinct from sibling ask_hermes without ambiguity.

  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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to verify reachability or health of the Hermes Agent. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or comparison to ask_hermes, so the routing relies on inference.

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

• ask_hermesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the remote agent loop, 30-second-to-5-minute latency, streamed progress updates, persistent memory, and session-based context retention. This goes well beyond a generic 'delegate a task' statement.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a scannable bullet list of usage domains, then documents parameters. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

  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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what to pass, how to maintain context, expected timing, and what Hermes can do. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema provides only titles and types with 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates: it explains that prompt is the task instruction, advises specificity, and clarifies that session_id is optional and should be reused across related calls to maintain context, complete with an example.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delegate a task or question to the remote Hermes Agent.' It then lists concrete capability domains, making it unmistakable what the tool does and distinguishing it from the health-check sibling.

  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?

  'Use this tool whenever you need Hermes to:' followed by a concrete list gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name the sibling hermes_health as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.