Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_commandB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that commands can be executed remotely or locally and hints at session reuse for 20 minutes, but it lacks critical details such as security implications, error handling, output format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that executes arbitrary commands.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It avoids unnecessary details and stays focused on the tool's scope, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating remote and local use cases.

  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 complexity of executing commands (which can have security and system impacts), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or safety warnings, making it incomplete for informed tool usage.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is already documented in the schema, such as explaining the 'command' parameter's system dependencies or the 'session' parameter's environmental implications in more depth.

  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 states the tool's purpose as executing commands on remote hosts or locally, specifying both the verb ('execute') and the resource ('commands'). It distinguishes between remote and local execution contexts. However, without sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

  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 by mentioning both remote and local contexts, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites. For example, it notes host is optional for local execution but does not clarify when remote execution is preferable or what conditions might affect it.

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