Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_control_signalA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description solely handles transparency. It lists supported signals and notes that SIGINT avoids killing the harness, but does not disclose that SIGQUIT may cause a core dump or other potential side effects. The description is missing behavioral details like authentication needs or error handling, earning a 3.

  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 superfluous words. The first sentence states the action, and the second lists supported signals. The description is perfectly front-loaded and efficiently uses space.

  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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and supported values. It references 'persistent pane (FR-04)' which may be assumed context. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. Minor gaps (e.g., error handling) prevent a 5.

  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 has only one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds value by listing supported signal values and explaining their effects (e.g., Ctrl+C for SIGINT). This compensates for the schema gap, though it could include an explicit allowed values list.

  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 specifies the action ('issue a control signal keystroke'), the target ('persistent pane (FR-04)'), and provides concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings (execute_command, read_terminal_buffer) by focusing on sending signals rather than executing commands or reading output.

  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 a clear use case 'break out of a blocking process without killing the harness', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context with sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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

• read_terminal_bufferA
  4.3/5.0
  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 hard-wrapped rows are joined, trailing blank viewport padding is trimmed, and the 'lines' parameter has default 100 and max 20000. It lacks statements about auth or rate limits, but as a read operation, the 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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one paragraph for processing details. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, processing, parameter meaning, and bounds. No gaps remain.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'lines' is the number of trailing scrollback lines to capture, with default 100 and max 20000. This compensates for the schema's minimal information.

  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 'capture' and resource 'trailing scrollback from the active tmux pane', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like execute_command and send_control_signal. It also details processing steps (joining rows, trimming padding) for precision.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context of siblings (execute_command, send_control_signal) makes usage implied. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided.

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

• execute_commandA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that output is not returned by default, carriage return appended, wait_s capped at 30s, and the persistent pane. It doesn't mention destructiveness but shell commands inherently imply that.

  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 well-structured but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, mechanics, default behavior, and alternatives. Could be trimmed slightly but still clear.

  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?

  Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers behavior, usage patterns, and alternatives. It references the workspace pane and provides complete guidance for using the tool.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains command is sent literally with carriage return, and wait_s allows sleeping and returning trailing buffer, adding 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 'Dispatch a raw shell command string into the persistent background workspace pane (FR-02)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_terminal_buffer (for reading output) and send_control_signal (for signals).

  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 tells when to use wait_s (>0 for quick commands) and when to poll (long jobs). It names the alternative tool read_terminal_buffer for observing results, giving clear usage context.

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