Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_file_metadataC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return details (filename, mime_type, etc.), which is helpful, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 required parameters.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return details. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or usage scenarios.

  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 (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but misses parameter semantics, behavioral traits like error handling, and lacks output schema details. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple required inputs and no structured safety hints.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 3 parameters. It only mentions 'file_id' indirectly ('by ID'), but provides no context for 'tenant_id' or 'project_id', such as their roles or how they relate to the file. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings adequately.

  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 'fetch' and resource 'metadata for a specific file by ID', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_files' by focusing on a single file rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'semantic_search_files', so it's not fully differentiated.

  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 'search_files' or 'semantic_search_files'. It implies usage for retrieving metadata of a known file ID, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• search_filesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions search functionality and filter examples. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is read-only, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no filters are provided. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and filter examples. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

  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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'filters' parameter well but ignores others, lacks behavioral transparency for a search tool, and doesn't explain return values or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

  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 but only partially does. It mentions 'metadata filters' and examples like 'filename, mime_type, processing_status, upload date range', which helps explain the 'filters' parameter. However, it doesn't address 'tenant_id', 'project_id', 'page', or 'page_size' parameters, leaving 4 of 5 parameters without semantic clarification.

  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 ('files') with the method ('using metadata filters'). It distinguishes from 'get_file_metadata' by focusing on search rather than retrieval, and from 'semantic_search_files' by specifying metadata-based rather than semantic search. However, it doesn't explicitly name these 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?

  The description implies usage context through 'metadata filters' and example filters, suggesting when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over 'semantic_search_files' or 'get_file_metadata', nor does it mention prerequisites like required parameters.

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

• semantic_search_filesB
  3/5.0
  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. While it mentions 'semantic search' and 'natural language', it doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., relevance scores, format), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too vague for a tool with 6 parameters and no 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?

  The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Semantic search over file embeddings', 'Use natural language to find relevant content across files') directly contributes to understanding the tool's 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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any details about parameter usage. For a search tool with multiple filtering options, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters like 'tenant_id', 'project_id', 'top_k', 'file_ids', or 'threshold', leaving their purposes and usage completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Semantic search over file embeddings' with the specific action 'Use natural language to find relevant content across files.' It distinguishes itself from 'search_files' by specifying semantic search (natural language understanding) rather than keyword-based search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_file_metadata'.

  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 context ('Use natural language to find relevant content') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_files' or 'get_file_metadata'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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