Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compress_pdfC
  2.6/5.0
  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 outlines the pipeline steps but omits critical details: whether the operation is destructive, if it requires network access, what permissions are needed, approximate time, or error conditions. For a multi-step tool, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single 18-word sentence that efficiently lists the sequential steps. It is front-loaded with the main action (read local PDF). However, it could be structured with bullet points or separate clauses to improve readability, though it remains reasonably concise.

  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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., job ID), how to retrieve results (via siblings), or the role of optional parameters. A comprehensive description should at least indicate that a job object is created and that its manifest can be fetched via get_job_manifest.

  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?

  The input schema has three properties (pdf_path, chars_per_image, inline_images) with zero description coverage in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should at least explain the effect of each parameter, but it fails to do so.

  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 reads a local PDF, runs Mistral OCR, recomposes into PNG images, and creates a compression job. This distinguishes it from its siblings (get_job_manifest, get_packed_images) which are retrieval tools. However, it could better emphasize that the primary output is a job object rather than a compressed file.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., local file access, Mistral OCR availability) or scenarios where it should be avoided. There is no mention of the sibling tools or when retrieval should be used instead.

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

• get_packed_imagesC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the operation as 'return' implying read-only, but does not mention pagination behavior, order, error conditions, or any side effects. It is insufficiently transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-informative. It achieves conciseness at the cost of missing critical details.

  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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination, the nature of packed images, or expected behavior. The tool is more complex than the description conveys.

  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 should explain parameters. It does not describe job_id, start_index, or limit beyond the schema defaults. The meaning of start_index and limit (likely pagination) is left implicit.

  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 returns previously generated packed PNG images for a job. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('packed PNG images'), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like compress_pdf or get_job_manifest.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or limitations. The description implies basic usage but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

• get_job_manifestC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'load' without clarifying whether it is read-only, what happens if the job_id is invalid, or any side effects. 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.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is a single short sentence, but it omits essential information. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what a manifest is, nor the return format or error behavior.

  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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'job_id'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (it simply names the parameter). With no additional context, the agent cannot infer format or constraints.

  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 'Load' and the resource 'saved manifest for a previously compressed PDF job', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compress_pdf and get_packed_images.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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