Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_markdown_to_wordB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action without mentioning side effects like file overwriting, dependency on Pandoc, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that reads and writes files.

  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, well-structured sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded and easy to understand.

  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?

  While the schema documents parameters well, the overall description lacks critical context such as prerequisite dependencies (Pandoc), file system side effects, and output behavior. This makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use safely and correctly without additional assumptions.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions and defaults, including the optional outputPath and the nested options object. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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's function: converting Markdown files to Word (.docx) files. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the opposite sibling (convert_word_to_markdown) makes the distinction obvious.

  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 name and description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not note that Pandoc must be installed, even though a sibling tool exists for that.

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

• convert_word_to_markdownB
  3.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion intent without mentioning dependencies (e.g., Pandoc), side effects, output behavior, or what happens to media files — significant gaps for correct usage.

  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, direct sentence with no filler, clearly stating the core function in a compact manner. Every word serves a purpose.

  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 a nested options object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain what happens after conversion, whether Pandoc is required, or how optional parameters (e.g., outputPath, extractMedia) affect the result, leaving important context missing.

  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 descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

  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 ('轉換' - convert) and the resource ('Word (.docx) 文件' to 'Markdown 文件'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_markdown_to_word (reverse direction) and check_pandoc_installation (dependency check).

  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 the tool is for converting Word documents to Markdown, and sibling names clarify alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• check_pandoc_installationA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the basic behavior (check and display version) but does not specify what happens if pandoc is not installed, such as an error message or exit code. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but for a simple check it provides partial 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could mention the behavior when pandoc is absent, but the core functionality is clearly conveyed.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema is empty, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

  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's function: checking if pandoc is installed and displaying the version. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose implies it's a prerequisite check for the conversion tools. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, but the context makes the usage clear.

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

• list_supported_formatsA
  4/5.0
  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 only states the tool lists formats, but does not disclose whether this requires pandoc to be installed, what the return format looks like (e.g., a list of strings or a JSON object), or whether it can be called safely without side effects. This is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

  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, front-loaded Chinese sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word is informative and there is no redundant phrasing.

  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 parameterless list tool, the description is nearly complete. It does not specify the output format, and no output schema exists to cover that, but the expected behavior (returning a list of format names) is strongly implied. The low complexity offsets the minor omission.

  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 the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because there is nothing to configure. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

  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 '列出 pandoc 支援的所有格式' clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (all formats supported by pandoc), and distinguishes this tool from the conversion and installation-checking siblings. It is specific and 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 makes the usage context clear: it is the tool for discovering which formats pandoc supports. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling names (convert_markdown_to_word, etc.) imply a distinct purpose, so no conflict or exclusion is needed.

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