Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lock_cleanupA
  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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Force-remove,' indicating destructive action, but does not detail permissions, side effects, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., no stale locks). This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

  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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the action and usage guidance front-loaded. Every word adds value with no 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 tool with clear sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose and when to use, though it could optionally mention return values. The lack of output schema is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

  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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing 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 tool removes stale locks (dead PIDs), differentiating it from siblings like lock_acquire, lock_list, and lock_release. It uses a specific verb and resource, with no ambiguity.

  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 usage context: 'Use when lock_list shows locks with alive: false.' It implies the precondition but does not exclude other use cases or mention when not to use it.

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

• lock_listA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Description mentions output fields (owner, PID, timestamp, alive status) but does not disclose behavioral details like permissions required, performance impacts, or whether it shows a snapshot. With no annotations, this is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a simple 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?

  Single sentence that immediately states the action and output details. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing operation, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No missing information.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is automatically 100%. The description adds valuable information about what the tool outputs, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description's detail on output fields elevates it to 5.

  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?

  Clear verb 'list' specifies the action precisely, and the resource is 'current file locks' with enumerated details (owner, PID, timestamp, alive status). Differentiates from siblings which are mutating actions (acquire, cleanup, release).

  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?

  No explicit usage guidance or alternatives provided. However, the name and description imply it is for viewing current locks, and sibling tools are all mutating, so the purpose is distinct. Missing explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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

• lock_acquireA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses exclusivity and conflict failure mode, but doesn't specify lock lifecycle (e.g., auto-release).

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, 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?

  Adequately covers tool purpose and behavior for a simple lock tool; could mention lock persistence, but sibling tools imply it.

  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?

  100% schema coverage; description adds context about path conflicts and exclusivity, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

  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 acquires exclusive file locks, distinguishing it from siblings like lock_release and lock_list.

  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 guidance: 'Always call this before editing files.' Implicitly indicates when to use, but doesn't contrast with alternatives.

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

• lock_releaseA
  4.5/5.0
  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 omitting paths releases all locks for the session, which is critical behavioral context. It does not detail potential failure modes or return values, but for a simple release operation, this is adequate.

  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?

  Two concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second provides the key condition on parameter omission. No redundant words, perfectly front-loaded.

  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 simple structure (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. Could mention error handling or return format, but not essential for this tool.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a description for 'paths'. The description adds the semantic nuance that omitting the parameter releases all locks, which goes beyond the schema's field 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 action ('Release file locks') and distinguishes between releasing specific paths versus all locks for the session. This differentiates it from siblings like lock_acquire and lock_list.

  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 omit the 'paths' parameter (to release all locks for the session), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is implied by the sibling names.

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