Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• executeC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution contexts but doesn't reveal critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether commands are synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description is operationally opaque beyond the basic action.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a command execution tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what types of commands can be executed, what the expected output format might be, error conditions, or security implications. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial and error.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the three contexts but doesn't elaborate on their differences or provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'Execute[s] a command in the specified context' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what types of commands are executed and what 'execute' means operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (help, list) beyond the general action of execution.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions three contexts (MCP, RPC, RUN) but doesn't explain when each context is appropriate or what distinguishes this execution tool from other potential command-execution tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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

• helpB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool 'gets detailed help' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, or any potential side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two required parameters.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed help for a specific command') and adds a useful detail ('including examples') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output, behavioral traits, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it's not entirely inadequate.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('context' with enum values and 'command'). The description adds minimal value beyond implying that 'command' is the target for help, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed help for a specific command'), and it includes additional context ('including examples'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute' or 'list', which might also provide help or information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute' or 'list'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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

• listB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists commands grouped by context and folder, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or any authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all available commands') and adds necessary detail ('grouped by context and folder'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for this simple tool.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('context') fully documented including its enum values and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the grouping behavior or folder implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available commands'), specifying they are 'grouped by context and folder'. It distinguishes from 'execute' (which presumably runs commands) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'help' (which might provide documentation). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

  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 'execute' or 'help'. The description implies it's for listing commands, but there's no explicit context for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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