Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_eml_to_bundleC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core conversion and source handling (copy/move/delete), including that delete is destructive. However, it omits side effects like disk space, file permissions, or time cost. It also doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible. Adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It logically flows from purpose to source_handling options to return format. However, it could be more structured by grouping related parameters or adding a brief overview of all parameter categories.

  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's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no schema param descriptions), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most options (preset, thread mode, various stripping flags). While the output schema exists and the description mentions return fields, it does not provide enough context for correct invocation of all parameters.

  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 no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only elaborates on source_handling. The other 14 parameters (preset, thread_mode, strip_signatures, etc.) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. This is a major gap; the description should compensate but does so minimally.

  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 converts .eml to a self-contained bundle with markdown and attachments. It specifies the output structure (directory) and source handling options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like convert_eml or convert_directory, missing an opportunity to help the agent choose the right tool.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like convert_eml and convert_directory, explicit usage context would be valuable. Without annotations, the description should bear this burden but fails.

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

• convert_directoryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description adds value by stating batch conversion, recursion, and JSON summary structure, but lacks info on side effects, permissions, or limitations.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff, and ends with a helpful alternative reference.

  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's complexity (15 parameters), the description covers only basic behavior and output, leaving the agent without insight into key configuration options.

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

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description provides no explanation for any parameter beyond the directory. Agent has no guidance on presets, dry_run, etc.

  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 batch converts .eml files in a directory to Markdown, with recursive behavior, and distinguishes itself from sibling convert_eml by mentioning individual file retrieval.

  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 a clear alternative: use convert_eml for individual file content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention the sibling convert_eml_to_bundle.

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

• convert_emlA
  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 full burden. It discloses the return value (Markdown with front matter), the optional disk write, and the behavior of presets and flag overrides. However, it does not explain the thread_mode and thread_order parameters, leaving some behavioral aspects unexplained.

  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 concise with six sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear bullet-like list for presets. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

  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 complexity (14 parameters, presets, output schema), the description covers the main purpose, return value, presets, and override logic. It lacks explanation for thread_mode and thread_order, but overall provides sufficient context for most use cases.

  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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains presets and mentions several flags (signatures, tracking pixels, etc.), and notes that individual flags override presets. However, it omits details for thread_mode, thread_order, and some boolean flags. The presets bundling compensates partially.

  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 converts .eml to Markdown with YAML front matter, specifying the output format and the optional file write. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like convert_directory and convert_eml_to_bundle by focusing on a single file conversion.

  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 clear guidance on preset usage and flag overrides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like convert_directory or convert_eml_to_bundle, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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

• get_diagnosticsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description correctly indicates the tool is read-only ('without writing permanent files') and lists return fields. It could add more on failure handling or side effects, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

  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?

  Three efficient sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by use cases, then return value summary. No redundant information.

  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 the high parameter count (13) and no annotations, the description should cover key parameters but does not. It does explain the output schema adequately and provides use cases. The output schema exists, reducing the need to document return values, but parameter guidance is missing.

  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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 13 parameters (preset, thread_mode, stripping options, etc.). Parameter names provide some hints, but the description adds no semantic guidance 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 verb 'Inspect' and resource 'email quality and structure', and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling conversion tools by noting it does not write permanent files. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Provides explicit scenarios: 'assess conversion quality before committing' and 'troubleshoot problematic .eml files'. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, and the sibling tools are all about conversion, making the distinction clear.

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