Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_host_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source ('SSH config') and the returned fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the alias is not found), potential side effects, or any prerequisites. It adds some useful context but leaves gaps.

  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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and returns adequately. It lacks mention of error handling or related tools, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete overall.

  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 input schema only defines 'hostname' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a 'Host alias from SSH config,' which gives crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema. It also lists the return fields, further clarifying the parameter's role.

  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 action ('Get config details') and the resource (a host alias), and lists the specific fields returned (hostname, port, user, key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ssh_hosts, execute_ssh_command, and test_ssh_connection, which have 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context: 'for a host alias' suggests you use this when you need connection details for a known SSH alias. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like list_ssh_hosts or test_ssh_connection. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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

• list_ssh_hostsA
  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 carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation and specifies the return format as a newline-separated list. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing config file) or config path, but for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent.

  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 appropriately concise, with a clear front-loaded action statement and a separate return-format section. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

  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 (zero parameters, no annotations, simple return), the description covers operation and output adequately. It could mention behavior when no hosts are configured or when the SSH config is missing, but this is not critical given the 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the data source ('SSH config') and the output format, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

  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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('host aliases from the SSH config'), making the action and scope unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like execute_ssh_command, get_host_info, and test_ssh_connection.

  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 discovering available host aliases, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself leaves this to inference.

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

• execute_ssh_commandA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses timeout bounds, output truncation via max_length, the fact that full output goes to a log file, and the return format. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects of running arbitrary commands, or safety/security caveats.

  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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list and Returns section. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or redundant content.

  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?

  The description provides strong coverage of parameters, defaults, return values, and truncation behavior. However, it omits any guidance about long-running or destructive commands, authentication assumptions, or remote-host impact, which would be helpful for a tool that executes arbitrary commands with no annotation safeguards.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: hostname as an SSH config alias, command as the shell command, timeout with defaults/max, and max_length with truncation and log-file behavior. This is exactly what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 function: 'Run a shell command on a remote host over SSH.' The verb 'Run' and resource 'shell command on a remote host' are specific, and the description distinguishes this from sibling tools that list hosts, get host info, or test connections.

  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 one-line summary provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to execute a shell command on a remote host. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that no confusion with sibling tools arises.

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

• test_ssh_connectionA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that no command is run and that the return value indicates success/failure, but it omits details about error behavior (e.g., unknown host alias, unreachable host) and whether any side effects exist.

  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 compact and well-structured with a one-sentence summary, clearly labeled Args, and Returns. Every line earns its place without fluff or repetition.

  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?

  The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers purpose, parameters, and return behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention behavior on failure (e.g., exception vs. false return) for even stronger guidance.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that hostname is an 'alias from SSH config' and timeout is 'connection timeout, seconds (default 30, max 300)', adding crucial meaning not present in 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('SSH connectivity to a host'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool execute_ssh_command by adding 'without running a command'.

  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 phrase 'without running a command' provides clear context for when to use this tool versus execute_ssh_command. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_ssh_hosts or get_host_info, but the core use case is well implied.

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