Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_shell_commandC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions running commands in a subprocess and navigating folders, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as security implications, error handling, output format, or execution environment. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that executes shell commands.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is moderately concise but includes redundant advice (e.g., using 'pwd' to get the path) that may not be necessary. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the structure could be improved by eliminating less critical details to focus on core functionality.

  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 shell commands, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on safety, permissions, error responses, and how results are returned, which are essential for proper tool usage in this context.

  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 documents both parameters. The description adds some context for 'skill_name' (navigating to a folder) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'run shell command in a subprocess,' which provides a clear verb+resource (run + shell command). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_skill' or 'read_reference_file,' leaving the specific role ambiguous. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description mentions that 'skill_name' allows navigation to a folder for convenience, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools is given, offering minimal usage direction.

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

• load_skillC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool loads instructions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the skill doesn't exist), file format expectations, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste, efficiently conveying the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the loaded instructions look like (e.g., text content, structure), error scenarios, or dependencies. For a tool that likely returns instructional data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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, with the single parameter 'skill_name' documented as 'skill name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Load') and resource ('one skill's instructions from the SKILL.md'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_skill_metadata' or 'read_reference_file', which likely handle related but different operations.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'load_skill_metadata' (which might load metadata instead of instructions) or 'read_reference_file' (which might read other files). The description implies usage for loading skill instructions but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• read_reference_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool reads files but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with file systems.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element earns its place without redundancy.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, error messages) or address potential complexities like file paths or skill dependencies. For a file-reading tool, this lack of behavioral and output context is a significant gap.

  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 documents both parameters ('skill_name' and 'file_name'). The description adds minimal value by implying the file is from a skill context and providing examples (e.g., forms.md), but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 action ('Read') and resource ('a reference file from a skill'), with examples provided. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'load_skill' and 'load_skill_metadata' by focusing specifically on reading reference files rather than loading skills or metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'run_shell_command', which might also read files.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'load_skill' or 'run_shell_command'. It mentions examples of reference files (e.g., forms.md) but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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

• load_skill_metadataB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the skills directory is empty, or what format the metadata is returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose clearly with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

  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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks behavioral details, it's incomplete. The agent knows what the tool does but not how it behaves (e.g., read-only vs. mutation, error handling, return format). For a tool that likely returns data, the absence of output schema or description of return values is a significant gap.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter context is required or provided.

  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 action ('Load metadata') and resource ('all available skills from the skills directory'), specifying what fields are included ('name and description'). It distinguishes from 'load_skill' (which likely loads skill content rather than metadata) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_reference_file' or 'run_shell_command'.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for getting skill metadata, there's no mention of when to use this versus 'load_skill' (which might load the skill itself) or other siblings. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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