Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• monitor_cancelA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context ('Settled monitors are left untouched'), but lacks details about reversibility, state changes after cancellation, permission requirements, or why a reason parameter exists. This is a moderate 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 two sentences long, directly front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the simple tool but zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for full context. It covers the main action but omits parameter meaning, behavioral consequences, and how it fits with sibling tools. The missing information leaves an agent guessing about important invocation details.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (id, reason). It does not identify that id likely refers to the monitor identifier or what reason is used for. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

  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: 'Stop an active monitor.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, wait, run, status) by focusing on cancellation. The additional note about settled monitors clarifies the exact scope of the operation.

  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 the tool should be used when an active monitor needs to be stopped, and clarifies that settled monitors are not affected. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as checking status first via monitor_status.

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

• monitor_runA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the call blocks, can time out (leaving the monitor running), and returns an id for later use. However, it doesn't explain what 'settles' means (e.g., success/failure states), error handling, or whether the call can be interrupted. This is a partial disclosure that leaves gaps.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the key point ('Convenience'). Every clause provides useful information: it combines operations, blocks, handles timeout, and suggests a follow-up action. No filler 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?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, this description does a good job for a convenience wrapper. It explains the blocking behavior, timeout handling, and the ability to continue with monitor_wait on the returned id. It doesn't describe return format or state meanings, which would be necessary for full completeness, but for a combined create+wait operation it is sufficiently clear.

  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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds meaning to wait_timeout_seconds by explaining its role in the blocking timeout. It does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema mostly explains parameters, but the description could have compensated for uncovered ones.

  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 verb and resource: it creates a monitor and waits for it to settle, combining monitor_create and monitor_wait. It explicitly mentions 'one blocking call', which distinguishes it from the separate sibling tools. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

  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 use this tool when you want create-and-wait in a single step. It also provides guidance on the timeout scenario, suggesting you can use monitor_wait later on the returned id. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear from the sibling list.

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

• monitor_createA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: evaluation happens inside the plugin, it returns a monitor id, and it is a background operation. It warns against manual polling and points to a companion tool. However, it does not describe lifecycle aspects like timeout behavior, failure states, or how to cancel, which would add further 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids fluff and clearly communicates the primary behavior, the return value, the companion tool, and the intended use cases.

  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 create tool with nested condition objects and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (monitor id) and links to the next step (monitor_wait). It mentions the supported condition types and long-running scenarios. It could mention status/cancel tools or lifecycle states, but the core usage is well covered.

  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 75%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for condition variants and timeout_seconds. The description only adds 'Installed condition types: command, file, log,' which is already present in the schema. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the structured schema, so a baseline 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 tool's function: 'Create a background monitor that watches for a condition and settles when it becomes true.' It specifies the resource (monitor), the action (create), and scopes it to long-running tasks. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning monitor_wait and listing supported condition types (command, file, log).

  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 gives concrete usage context: 'Use this for anything long-running: cluster jobs, builds, deploys, downloads, servers coming up.' It also provides an explicit workflow ('pass it to monitor_wait') and a strong directive ('never write your own sleep/poll loop'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like monitor_run or exclude cases, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

• monitor_statusA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a non-blocking snapshot and that omitting IDs returns all monitors. It doesn't detail return format or error handling, but for a simple status lookup 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?

  The description is two sentences, highly concise, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff 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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, usage guidance, and contrasts with a sibling. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the simplicity, and the description suffices for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 only parameter, ids, is explained by the statement 'Omit ids for all monitors.' This adds context not present in the schema (which has no description). The array of string IDs is self-explanatory as monitor identifiers.

  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: a snapshot of monitors without blocking, with the ability to target specific IDs or all. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool monitor_wait, which is explicitly mentioned.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is provided: use for a quick look, and use monitor_wait instead of repeated status calls to wait for completion. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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

• monitor_waitA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it excels. It discloses that the tool blocks, that monitors continue running even if the wait ends early, and that interruption still keeps monitors alive. It also specifies the outcome string 'wait_timeout' on timeout, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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?

  Three sentences total, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mode behavior, then timeout and persistence semantics. Each sentence earns its place; no redundant phrases or repetitive restating of the schema. Highly efficient yet complete.

  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 blocking wait tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers behavior, modes, timeout, and resumption. The only gap is not describing what the response includes upon a successful settle (e.g., whether it returns which monitor id or status). Given that no output schema exists, this would be useful, but the description still provides enough orientation for an agent to use the 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 has 67% coverage (ids and wait_timeout_seconds have description, mode has none). The description compensates by fully explaining mode semantics ('all' waits for all, 'any' returns on first) and the effect of wait_timeout_seconds (returns outcome 'wait_timeout'). This adds meaning beyond the raw enum and default values.

  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: 'Block until the given monitor(s) settle.' It clearly defines the scope (waiting on monitors) and distinguishes itself from siblings like monitor_create or monitor_status. The explanation of modes ('all', 'any') further sharpens what the tool does.

  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 clear context on usage: it explains the 'all' vs 'any' modes and the timeout behavior. It also advises calling monitor_wait again to resume after interrupted waits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with monitor_status (e.g., 'use monitor_status for non-blocking checks'), so alternatives are implied rather than stated.

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