Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• peer_threadsC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description ('List') is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format). No contradiction.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is extremely short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits critical information about parameters and behavior. Conciseness is not equivalent to under-specification; here it sacrifices completeness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool description is wholly inadequate. It lacks essential context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially regarding the peerId requirement and optional parameters.

  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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain the meaning or constraints of cwd, limit, or peerId. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

  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 'List peer Codex threads', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like peer_health or peer_message by focusing on 'threads'. However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., 'for a given peer').

  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. For example, it does not explain how this differs from peer_read or peer_message, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• peer_messageC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior, adding minimal value beyond 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 a single, well-structured sentence of 10 words. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any extraneous content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It omits critical context like how to structure the message, when to use threadId vs startNewThread, and what the response signifies.

  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 only 25%, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. With 8 parameters and many undocumented, the agent receives no help understanding their meaning or usage.

  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 'Send' and the resource 'natural-language message to a peer Codex thread'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like peer_read and peer_health by specifying the action of sending.

  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. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• peer_readB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that the tool 'summarizes its recent turns', which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations. This gives useful context, though it could be more detailed about the summarization 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?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, optional parameters, error cases, or how 'recent' is defined, making it incomplete for effective use.

  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?

  The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation for any parameter (e.g., peerId, threadId, maxItems, maxResponseChars). The agent cannot infer parameter meaning from the description 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 reads a peer Codex thread and summarizes its recent turns. The verb 'read' and resource 'peer Codex thread' are specific, and the action 'summarize' distinguishes it from siblings like peer_message or peer_health.

  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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• peer_healthA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds minimal context ('run initialize') but does not explain side effects, error states, or what 'initialize' entails for the connection, lacking depth beyond 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?

  Single sentence, zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core verb. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

  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 simple health-check tool with one parameter and annotations, the description is adequate but could be more helpful by noting return behavior or expected output, especially since no output schema is present.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the single parameter peerId. The description adds no further meaning or constraints beyond the schema's example, meeting baseline but not exceeding 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 uses specific verb-resource pair 'connect to a peer Codex app-server and run initialize', clearly stating the action and scope. It differentiates from siblings like peer_message and peer_read, which handle different operations.

  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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not conditions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like peer_read or peer_threads.

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

• peer_wait_until_completeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that reaching wait window returns turnCompleted false, not a failure, and that it waits quietly. No contradiction with 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?

  Single sentence, no extraneous words, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

  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 present; description does not mention return value format (e.g., turnCompleted boolean). Adequate for high-level behavior but incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema.

  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 only 33%, with 'waitWindowSeconds' and 'pollIntervalSeconds' described. The description does not explain 'peerId', 'threadId', 'turnId', or 'maxResponseChars', relying on schema which lacks descriptions for those. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.

  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 waits for a previously-started peer turn and returns only on completion or wait window end. The verb and resource are specific, distinguishing from sibling tools like 'peer_wait' which may be generic.

  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?

  Implies usage after starting a peer turn but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'peer_wait' or 'peer_read'. Clear context but lacking exclusion guidance.

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

• peer_waitA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool does not treat long work as failure, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 a single 10-word sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary details.

  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?

  The description omits parameter details, return value, error handling, and specific usage context. While annotations help, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

  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 0% and the description provides no information about parameters. With four parameters (peerId, turnId, threadId, maxResponseChars), the description fails to explain their purpose or usage.

  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 action: 'Check a previously-started peer turn', and distinguishes it from the sibling 'peer_wait_until_complete' by noting it does not treat long work as failure, implying a non-blocking check.

  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 checking a turn that may take a long time without failing, and the sibling 'peer_wait_until_complete' suggests an alternative for blocking waits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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