Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sandbox_statusA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys this is a read-only status operation (reports, doesn't modify). However, it doesn't mention whether it performs any setup actions, caches results, or has delays. The read-only implication is reasonably clear given 'report'.

  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?

  A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with zero waste. It names both things it reports on (daemon readiness and missing images) without redundancy. This is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter status tool.

  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 status check tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It identifies what the tool checks (daemon readiness, missing images). It doesn't describe return value format, but the output schema exists to cover that. Could mention whether readiness implies run_code will succeed, but overall adequate.

  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 there is nothing the description needs to add about parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4 per the rubric, and the description correctly contains no parameter-specific information since none exist.

  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 reports Docker daemon readiness and missing allowlisted runtime images. The verb 'report' with specific resources (Docker daemon readiness, runtime images) is specific. It distinguishes itself from run_code by being a status/read tool rather than an execution tool.

  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 context implies this is a readiness/health check tool—likely to be called before run_code to verify the sandbox environment. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'check before running code') or contrast with alternatives. The usage pattern with run_code is implied but not stated.

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

• run_codeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden, and it does well: it states no network/host mounts, bounded output with operator-controlled truncation, 1-30 sec timeout, and that images must already exist locally (never auto-pulls). These are genuine behavioral disclosures beyond the schema about constraints, safety, and dependence on pre-existing resources.

  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 short, focused sentences. Each sentence earns its place: first states purpose and return type, second explains timeouts, third explains the image dependency. Zero waste, efficient and scannable.

  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 relatively simple (3 params, 2 required, output schema provided), and the description covers the key behavioral constraints (no network, no mounts, local images, timeout, truncation). It adequately covers the safety and resource-dependence properties the agent would need to know before invoking. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description needn't explain that further.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The schema covers 3 params (code, language, timeout_seconds) with enum for language. The description mentions timeout range (1-30 sec) and output truncation which contextualizes the timeout_seconds parameter. However, no additional detail is given for what the output schema returns beyond 'stdout, stderr, and status', which is stated. With 0% coverage, some description of parameter semantics is needed; it partially provides it.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Run code') plus resource constraints ('without network or host mounts') and return values ('bounded stdout, stderr, and status'). It's clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling 'sandbox_status', though the purpose is different enough that this is mostly implicit.

  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 explains important constraints (no network/host mounts, timeout range 1-30 sec, requires local images) which imply when this code runner is/isn't appropriate. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling 'sandbox_status', and no guidance on when NOT to use it or what the sandbox_status tool is for.

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