Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• genvm_lintC
  2.5/5.0
  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 fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., file modifications, network requests), error handling, or required permissions. The description does not elaborate on what the tool does beyond running a command.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and prioritization. It lists multiple functions without highlighting the primary use case. It could be more efficiently organized.

  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 tool that runs a command, it is critical to mention that it returns stdout/stderr or exit code. No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns. Important behavioral context is missing, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

  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, so the schema already documents the parameters (args, cwd, timeoutMs, env). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 that the tool runs genvm-lint for various tasks like linting, validation, schema extraction, etc., but it lists multiple purposes without a clear single focus. The verb 'Run' is generic and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'genlayer' or 'genlayer_deploy'.

  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, such as 'check_tools' or 'genlayer'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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

• genlayerB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description notes that it 'can perform state-changing operations', which is a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on security, error handling, or resource impact.

  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 very concise with two sentences, no fluff. While efficient, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

  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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not describe return values or potential side effects beyond stating state-changing operations.

  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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

  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 'Run the GenLayer CLI' with 'full command access', distinguishing it from sibling tools like genlayer_deploy and genvm_lint. However, it is somewhat broad without specifying typical commands.

  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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• genlayer_deployB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  In the absence of annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the key generation fallback for privateKey but fails to disclose other significant behaviors such as error handling, side effects, or return value structure. This is insufficient for an 18-parameter 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?

  The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately add an important behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

  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 tool's complexity (18 optional parameters, one required), the description is far from complete. It lacks information about error handling, output structure, behavior of optional parameters, or any post-deployment steps. An output schema would help, but it is absent.

  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 50%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the privateKey fallback behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not compensate for the remaining 50% of parameters that lack schema descriptions, resulting in only marginal improvement.

  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 it deploys a GenLayer Intelligent Contract using genlayer-js, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_tools, genlayer, and genvm_lint, which serve different purposes.

  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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It only describes the action without any contextual usage advice.

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

• check_toolsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read-only check operation with no side effects. Could mention output format but adequate for simple health check.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Highly concise.

  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?

  No output schema, but the simple check tool's behavior is largely conveyed. Could clarify what 'available' means (e.g., installed, running), but sufficiently complete for low complexity.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description need not add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 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?

  Description clearly states it checks availability of specific tools (node, genlayer, python, genvm-lint). Verb 'Check' plus explicit list distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like deploy or lint.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied it should be used as a precondition check, but no direct advice or exclusion criteria are provided.

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