Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_sessionsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It states it performs a full-text search and returns IDs, but does not disclose read-only nature, performance implications, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

  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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words, though additional details could be added without harming conciseness.

  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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover search scope details (e.g., case sensitivity), the role of the 'agent' filter, or what 'full-text' includes. The return type is stated, but more context is needed for effective use.

  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 description coverage is low (33%) meaning only the 'query' parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema; it does not explain the 'agent' enum or 'limit' constraints.

  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 identifies the tool as a full-text search across all agents' session transcripts and specifies that it returns matching session IDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sessions and read_session, though it could more explicitly differentiate from ask_agent.

  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. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

• read_sessionB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention error handling, authorization, or return format, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

  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?

  Description is a single, efficient sentence (9 words) that conveys the core purpose without fluff.

  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?

  Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no behavioral context, error details, or return-value information, making it incomplete for an agent's decision-making.

  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 descriptions cover 50% of parameters (tail and max_chars). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the undocumented agent and session_id parameters.

  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 the tool reads a normalized transcript of any agent's session, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sessions (listing) and search_sessions (searching).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_sessions, search_sessions). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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

• list_sessionsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of live statuses (attached, recent, idle) and implies a read-only nature. However, it does not detail return format or potential side effects.

  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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains the live statuses. Every sentence is essential.

  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 no output schema, the description omits what fields sessions contain. It covers the listing scope and live statuses but leaves the return structure unspecified, which is a gap for a tool with no output schema.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for live_only by defining statuses, but for agent and limit it only restates schema info. Minimal added value.

  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 that the tool lists coding-agent sessions across specific agents (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor) and explains the live statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_sessions or read_session.

  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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_sessions or handoff_session. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• handoff_sessionA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: building a markdown brief, saving to ~/.agent-bus/handoffs/, and conditional seeding. It does not detail side effects (e.g., file persistence) or authorization needs.

  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: first states purpose, second explains mechanics. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Every word adds value.

  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?

  No output schema, 7 parameters, moderate complexity. The description covers the workflow but does not describe return values (e.g., format of commands) or what happens on failure. Adequate but incomplete for full agent guidance.

  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 description coverage is 57%. The description adds context only for the launch parameter (false returns command, true seeds session). Other parameters like from_agent, to_agent, session_id, instructions are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer meaning from schema alone.

  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: 'Hand a session's context from one agent to another.' It specifies the actions (builds a markdown brief, saves it, returns command) and distinguishes from siblings like read_session.

  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 explains the two modes via the launch parameter (return command vs. seed session). It implies when to use this tool (for handoffs), but lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives like read_session.

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

• ask_agentA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses headless/blocking behavior, session_id side effects (hidden parallel branch), codex sandbox restrictions, and relay depth limit. This is comprehensive for a complex 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 a single paragraph of five sentences, all front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds critical context (headless, blocking, session mechanics, sandbox, relay limit, unaskable agents). 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 8 parameters, 2 required, and multiple behavioral nuances, the description covers the key points: headless/blocking, session context, sandboxing, relay limit, and which agents are askable. It does not explicitly describe return value format or error handling, but the tool is blocking and returns an answer directly. Minor gap but overall solid.

  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 75%, high enough that description need not cover every param. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining session_id's effect (thread snapshot, hidden exchange) and allow_writes (sandbox override for codex). This enriches parameter understanding.

  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: 'Ask another local agent a question and get its answer (headless, blocking).' It specifies the verb (ask) and resource (another local agent). The sibling tools all relate to session management, so this tool's purpose is distinct.

  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 for usage: passing session_id for thread context, relay depth cap, and cursor being unaskable. It doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no comparison is needed.

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