Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_servicesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It describes listing and filtering, which implies a read operation with no side effects. However, it lacks disclosure of output format, pagination, or ordering.

  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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose. However, it could be more precise by acknowledging the type parameter, which slightly reduces efficiency.

  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?

  For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering basics but fails to mention the type parameter's existence. Sibling tools are not referenced, and the discrepancy between 'services' and the broader unit types may confuse the agent.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds examples for pattern ('ssh*', 'cron*') and enumerates state options, but it omits the 'type' parameter entirely, which controls which unit types are listed. This omission reduces clarity for agents.

  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 states the tool lists systemd services and mentions filtering options, but it inaccurately limits to 'services' while the schema includes other unit types (timer, socket, etc.). This is a minor misrepresentation.

  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?

  The description provides context for filtering by state and pattern, but does not differentiate when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_failed_services, get_service_status), nor does it mention that the type parameter allows listing non-service units.

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

• get_service_logsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieval and configurable parameters but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or output format, though it adequately describes the basic behavior.

  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 with no wasted words; every part adds value.

  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 simple retrieval tool without output schema, the description covers purpose and key parameters, but could hint at return format or journald specifics for full completeness.

  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%, so baseline 3. The description restates line count and priority filtering without adding significant new meaning beyond the 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 it retrieves journald log entries for a systemd service with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_service_status or service_control.

  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 usage for retrieving logs but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives; however, sibling tools are sufficiently different, making context clear.

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

• list_failed_servicesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return fields, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, permissions, or behavioral nuances beyond the basic listing.

  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 that front-load the purpose and include specific return fields. 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?

  Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the input (none) and the output fields. Could mention ordering or limitations, but not necessary for basic usage.

  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?

  Tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 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 lists systemd services in a failed/error state and specifies the returned fields (unit name, load state, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like list_services (all services) and get_service_status (specific service).

  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 that this tool is for filtering to failed services, but no when-not conditions or comparisons are provided.

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

• service_controlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that most actions require root/sudo and may return permission errors. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as side effects on dependent services, action idempotency, or response format. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 very concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states purpose and actions; the second adds crucial permission context. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 nature of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main actions and a critical permission note. It does not explain success/failure output or naming conventions, but it is nearly complete for a systemd control 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond restating the action enum and the service name concept. Baseline score of 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 verb 'control' and the resource 'systemd service', listing the exact actions (start, stop, restart, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools like get_service_logs and get_service_status.

  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 includes a note about root/sudo privileges and permission errors, providing clear context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services or get_service_status.

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

• get_service_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') and adds a helpful behavioral detail: 'Accepts service names with or without the .service suffix.' This goes beyond the schema. It also lists the return fields, providing transparency on what the output contains. The description does not contradict any annotations.

  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: first sentence states purpose and output contents; second adds a usage tip about suffix. Every sentence provides unique value. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with key information.

  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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality, parameter behavior, and return fields. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but for a read-only status check this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'name' described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'Accepts service names with or without the .service suffix,' which is not in the schema description. This helps the agent understand acceptable input formats. Since schema already covers the parameter, the description enriches it.

  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 purpose: 'Get detailed status of a specific systemd service.' It lists the specific fields returned (load state, active state, PID, memory, CPU, tasks, documentation, uptime), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_logs (logs), list_services (listing), or service_control (actions). The verb 'Get' and resource 'systemd service' are specific.

  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?

  The description implies usage for retrieving status of one service, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'Use this to check a single service's status; for logs use get_service_logs'). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided. The context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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