Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• themes_searchC
  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 mentions the search functionality and a limit constraint, but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the search returns (e.g., format, fields). For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly convey the tool's function and key parameter constraint. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted verbiage or 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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and a parameter limit but misses essential context like return format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

  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. It adds meaning by specifying that 'query' is for searching themes and 'limit' is optional with a max of 100, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types and constraints. However, it doesn't detail query syntax or examples, leaving some semantic 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 verb ('Search') and resource ('2slides themes'), making the purpose evident. It specifies searching 'by query' which adds context. However, it doesn't distinguish this search tool from potential sibling search tools (though none are listed among siblings), keeping it from 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 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. It mentions an optional limit parameter but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when other tools like 'slides_generate' might be preferred. No explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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

• slides_generateB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns job info (jobId and downloadUrl) and mentions sync/async modes, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what '2slides' entails, leaving gaps in transparency for a generation tool.

  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 front-loaded with the main purpose and key return info, followed by an optional parameter note. It's concise with two sentences, but could be slightly improved by integrating the mode explanation more seamlessly or adding brief context for other parameters.

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and return values partially, but misses details on parameter meanings, error cases, and full behavioral traits, making it only minimally viable for a generation tool with multiple inputs.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  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. It only explains the 'mode' parameter with enum values, but doesn't add meaning for 'themeId', 'userInput', or 'responseLanguage'. This leaves three out of four parameters without semantic clarification, failing to adequately compensate for the low schema 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 ('Generate slides with 2slides') and resource ('slides'), specifying it's a generation tool. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jobs_get' or 'themes_search', which are retrieval tools rather than creation tools, so it misses explicit 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage through the mention of 'mode' options ('sync' or 'async'), suggesting when to use based on timing preferences, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jobs_get' for checking job status or 'themes_search' for finding themes, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• jobs_getA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling behavior ('check every 20 seconds') and expected outcome ('until status is success'), which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeout limits, or what happens if the job fails, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and usage guidance following. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and polling behavior but lacks details on response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in guiding an agent fully.

  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 description adds meaning by specifying that the jobId parameter is used to retrieve status/result from 2slides, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic string validation. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is adequate, though it could detail format or source of jobId.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('job status/result'), specifying it retrieves information by jobId from 2slides. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like slides_generate or themes_search, which appear to be different operations rather than alternative status-checking methods.

  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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Please check every 20 seconds until the status is success,' suggesting this tool is for polling job completion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like needing a valid jobId from another operation.

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