Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• loop_list_pagesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the best-effort nature, that it scrapes workspace navigation, and may miss pages not rendered. It also specifies the return fields (title + URL), which adds useful behavioral context.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Best-effort list...'), followed by essential caveats and output format. No wasted words.

  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 with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the main limitation. It could mention potential performance or auth requirements, but given its simplicity, it is largely complete.

  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 coverage is 100% with the workspace_url parameter already described, including a default. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the overall tool behavior, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 tool lists Loop pages visible in a workspace, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings (get, create, edit) which perform 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies use for enumerating pages but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. It provides a caveat about missing pages but no direct alternative guidance.

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

• loop_edit_pageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly mentions the 'append' and 'replace' behaviors (including the destructive nature of replace) and notes the requirement for an authenticated session. This goes beyond a generic statement, though it could further mention outcome or error behavior.

  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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add one necessary constraint (authentication). Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 edit tool with three parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the modes, and the auth requirement. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the schema's completeness, this remains a well-rounded description.

  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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description essentially restates the mode semantics ('append' or 'replace the body') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Hence, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool edits an existing Microsoft Loop page and specifies the two modes (append Markdown or replace the body). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get/list/create by explicitly targeting existing pages for modification.

  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 conveys when to use the tool (to modify an existing Loop page) and implicitly discourages using it for creation or retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, which would make the guidance even stronger.

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

• loop_get_pageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads and extracts rendered content, implying a non-destructive operation, and mentions the authenticated session. It does not cover error behavior or side effects, but for a read tool this is adequately transparent.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 description covers the action, output format, authentication prerequisite, and required input. For a simple read tool with no output schema, this is sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of read-only semantics or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity.

  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% for the url parameter. The description merely says 'Provide the page URL', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.

  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 ('Read a Microsoft Loop page as Markdown'), specifies the resource (Microsoft Loop page), and differentiates from siblings by the read operation versus list/create/edit. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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: it operates on a specific page via URL and uses the user's authenticated session. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the verb and resource strongly imply when to use it. Exclusion of alternatives is not explicit, so a small deduction.

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

• loop_create_pageA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'drives the authenticated Loop session' (indicating stateful action), mentions markdown auto-normalization, and requires an active session. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral mechanism, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy.

  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 create tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the operation, explains normalization, and notes the session requirement. It might optionally mention error cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'markdown' parameter by explaining that it is auto-normalized for Loop's paste-to-blocks conversion, and also clarifies the 'title' parameter by saying the page is filled with Markdown. This enriches the parameter semantics 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 the action ('Create a new Microsoft Loop page') and the resource ('Loop page'), and specifies that it fills the page with Markdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like loop_get_page/loop_list_pages/loop_edit_page by explicitly focusing on creation.

  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 gives clear context for when to use it (creating a new page) and mentions the prerequisite of an active session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and action are specific enough to imply appropriate usage contexts.

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