Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• adb_execute_shellA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: commands are restricted by a whitelist ('a través de una lista blanca de comandos'). However, it does not specify which commands are allowed, how invalid commands are handled, or what output/return behavior to expect.

  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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and object before the whitelist detail. It contains no filler or redundant phrases beyond the whitelist mention, making it appropriately concise.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply critical context. It does not enumerate the whitelisted commands, describe the expected output, or explain error behavior. Without knowing what commands are permitted, an agent may struggle to construct a valid invocation.

  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 already provides 100% coverage of the only parameter: command is described as the shell command to execute, with only permitted commands allowed. The description adds little beyond restating the whitelist concept, so it remains at the schema-dominated baseline.

  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 action and resource: it executes an Android shell command, and the whitelist qualifier adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_get_logcat, adb_clear_logcat, adb_dump_hierarchy, and adb_list_packages, which target different concerns.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the phrase 'comando shell' — the agent can infer this tool is for running shell commands rather than logcat, hierarchy, or package operations. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer a sibling tool, so guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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

• adb_clear_logcatA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It accurately states that the logcat buffer is cleared, but it does not disclose side effects such as permanent loss of current logs or that the action has no output.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It fully communicates the tool's purpose in minimal 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 zero-parameter utility that simply clears a buffer, the description is complete enough for most usage. It could mention irreversibility or connected-device requirements, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

  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 for the description to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

  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 and resource: 'Limpia el buffer de logcat del dispositivo Android' (clears the logcat buffer). This distinguishes it from siblings like adb_get_logcat by its clear verb 'Limpia', though it does not explicitly name sibling distinctions.

  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?

  Usage is implied: the tool is for clearing the logcat buffer. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over adb_get_logcat or any preconditions such as needing a connected device.

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

• adb_get_logcatA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-style retrieval operation and the filtering/limiting behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what the output format looks like, or whether a device connection is required.

  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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and all optional modifiers in one clear clause. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.

  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 read-style logcat tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it. It is slightly light on output format and explicit alternative routing, but those gaps are minor for this complexity level.

  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 all parameters. The description only restates the filtering dimensions (tag, log level, latest N lines) without adding defaults, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('Obtiene') and a concrete resource ('buffer de logcat del dispositivo Android'), and mentions the optional filters. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like adb_clear_logcat or adb_dump_hierarchy even without naming them.

  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 clearly implies logcat retrieval ('obtiene el buffer de logcat'), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as adb_clear_logcat.

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

• adb_list_packagesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and hints at default behavior by describing the option to include system packages. However, it does not mention output format, device connection requirements, or any caveats about how the filter behaves, leaving some gaps.

  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 compact sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then covers both configurable options without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  The tool is simple and the parameters are fully described, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or what prerequisites exist, such as a connected Android device. The description is adequate for a basic list operation but could be more self-contained.

  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 already covers both parameters fully with 100% coverage. The description restates the same concepts, adding no deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('paquetes instalados del dispositivo Android'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also mentions the two key capabilities, filtering by name and including system packages, which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like adb_get_logcat or adb_dump_hierarchy.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever installed Android packages need to be listed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated operations, so the intended use case is unambiguous.

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

• adb_dump_hierarchyA
  4/5.0
  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 transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool returns the current UI hierarchy as text/XML, but it omits read-only/safety implications, device connection requirements, and potential failure modes. There is no contradiction with annotations.

  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 concisely states the action, target, scope, and output format. No filler or 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 parameterless tool, the description covers the essential outcome and output type. It could add caveats like device connectivity or large output size, but the current level is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

  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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 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 a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('jerarquía de la UI actual del dispositivo Android'), and specifies the output format as text/XML. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that handle logcat, packages, or shell commands.

  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 use case is implied: use this when you need the current UI hierarchy for UI inspection or automation. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives or preconditions like a connected device.

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