Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• show_security_rulesB
  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 implies a read-only operation ('show'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, has rate limits, or details output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of security rules and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list, structured data), how to interpret 'allowed,' or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could hint at implicit context like environment scope. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.

  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: 'Show what commands and operations are allowed in this environment.' It specifies the verb 'show' and the resource 'commands and operations' with their context 'in this environment.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'run_command,' which likely executes commands rather than showing allowed ones.

  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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'run_command' or any context for usage, such as checking permissions before execution or troubleshooting. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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

• run_commandA
  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 full burden and does well by disclosing: execution directory constraint (/app), available commands (pwd, ls, cat), available flags (-l, --help, -a), shell operator restrictions, and how to enable operators. It doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, or output format details.

  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?

  Four sentences with zero waste - each provides essential information: purpose, available commands/flags, restrictions, and how to lift restrictions. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by operational details.

  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 single-parameter command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: execution environment, command/flag constraints, and operator restrictions. It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

  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 100% with the parameter 'command' well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about what constitutes valid commands (specific examples and restrictions), but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

  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 explicitly states 'Allows command (CLI) execution in the directory: /app' - a specific verb ('execute') with clear resource ('command/CLI') and location constraint ('/app'). It distinguishes from the only sibling tool 'show_security_rules' which appears unrelated to command execution.

  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 about what commands and flags are available, and when shell operators are/aren't supported. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (though the sibling tool appears unrelated) or provide exclusion guidance beyond the shell operator limitation.

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