Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• humsana_check_dangerous_commandA
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'checks' for danger and fatigue, implying a non-destructive read-only operation, but it does not describe the return value, decision logic, or whether it blocks execution. More detail on these behavioral traits would improve transparency.

  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: the first states the core purpose with a clear verb and resource, the second provides usage context with examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context well. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value or how the agent should act on the result, but the intended workflow is clear from the sibling tools and the phrase 'use this before helping.'

  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?

  The schema documents the single 'command' parameter with 100% coverage (description: 'The command to check'). The tool description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource (a command) and the two aspects being evaluated (danger and user fatigue). The examples (rm -rf, DROP TABLE, git push --force) distinguish it from sibling tools like safe_execute_command, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

  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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before helping with potentially destructive operations', with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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

• humsana_get_user_stateA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. Although 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, what permissions are required, or whether data is sensitive. It lacks details on side effects, auth needs, or any limitations beyond the verb itself.

  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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word serves a function; there is no filler 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?

  For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned (stress, focus, fatigue, response style recommendations) and when to use it. It could be improved by detailing the output format or scale, but the current description is largely complete for its intended 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 zero parameters, making schema coverage vacuously 100%. The description appropriately does not elaborate on parameters. According to the calibration, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4.

  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 with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource: the user's current behavioral state, listing concrete components (stress level, focus level, fatigue, response style recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on command execution and file writes.

  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 explicit usage context: 'Use this at the start of conversations to adapt your communication style.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given that siblings are unrelated safety/execution tools, such guidance is unnecessary. This is clear context without exclusions.

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

• humsana_safe_execute_commandA
  4.4/5.0
  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 discloses key safety behaviors: blocking dangerous commands when fatigued, requiring override confirmation for high-risk operations, and logging safety events. It does not mention output format or exit codes, but the interlock behavior is well covered.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise, well-structured, and free of fluff.

  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 schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's operation and safety behavior. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but for a command execution tool with safety interlocks, the description 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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds context about when override_reason is needed, but this is also present in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it executes a shell command and is 'THE tool for running commands', explicitly distinguishing it from any other shell/bash tool. The verb 'Execute' and resource 'shell command' are specific, and the Humsana Cognitive Interlock protection scope is mentioned.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says 'Use this instead of any other shell/bash tool', providing clear guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. It also describes when the interlock triggers (fatigue, high-risk) and that override confirmation is required, giving practical usage context.

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

• humsana_safe_write_fileA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Cognitive Interlock protection, the threshold (>30 lines while user is tired), the blocking behavior, and the fallback to a review folder. This gives the agent transparency about side effects beyond a simple write.

  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?

  Three sentences with no filler. Each sentence conveys essential information: purpose, behavioral safeguard, and usage direction. Ideal length.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  The description covers the tool's purpose, safety behavior, and output-less nature adequately. It explains what happens on a blocked write and the override mechanism, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly despite the lack of an 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions the interlock condition but does not elaborate on filepath or content formatting.

  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 'Write content to a file' and identifies the resource and action. It also declares 'Use this for ALL file write operations,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle commands or checks.

  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 explicitly instructs to use this tool for all file write operations, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like safe_execute_command, so it lacks exclusions.

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