Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_documentA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly describes what the tool returns ('structural map — headings with hierarchy, named ranges with boundaries, tables with dimensions, inline objects, and section boundaries') and explains the operational context ('so your edit operations target the right locations'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like document size constraints or authentication requirements.

  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 well-structured and efficiently written. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific details about the return value, then the operational guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The bold text effectively emphasizes the key usage instruction.

  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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the exact format of the structural map return value, though it does list the key components that will be included.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It provides the single parameter 'document_id' with clear semantics ('The Google Docs document ID from the URL'), which fully covers the one required parameter. The description doesn't need to explain parameter format beyond what's already stated.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('see what the document contains', 'returns the document's structural map') and resources ('document', 'headings', 'named ranges', 'tables', 'inline objects', 'section boundaries'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling edit_document by explaining this is for viewing structure before editing.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before edit_document' and explains why ('Without this, you're editing blind'). It also mentions the alternative edit_document by name and explains the relationship between the tools.

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

• validate_operationsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a validation-only tool that doesn't execute changes, returns compiled batchUpdate requests and validation status, and catches specific error types (address resolution errors, ambiguous headings, etc.). It could improve by mentioning rate limits or auth needs, but covers core behavior adequately.

  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 first sentence stating the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the second explains returns and use cases, the third details error types, and the fourth provides explicit usage guidance. The Args section efficiently clarifies parameters without redundancy.

  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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining inputs and behavior. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't fully describe the return format (e.g., structure of validation status) or potential error responses, which would be helpful despite no output schema.

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

  Parameters5/5

  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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining both parameters: 'document_id' is clarified as 'The Google Docs document ID' and 'operations' as 'List of operation dicts (same format as edit_document)', providing crucial context about format and relationship to sibling 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check whether edit operations would succeed without executing them') and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'edit_document' as the alternative for actual execution. It specifies the resource (edit operations on Google Docs) and the unique validation aspect.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you want to inspect the exact API calls before they execute, or when debugging why an edit might fail') and when not to use it (implied by suggesting use before 'edit_document when uncertain'). It clearly names the alternative sibling tool ('edit_document') for actual execution.

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

• edit_documentA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 thoroughly explains critical behavioral traits: the tool prevents index miscalculation issues that could silently corrupt documents, compiles semantic intent into correct sequences, and lists all valid operation types. This goes well beyond basic functionality disclosure.

  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 sized and well-structured with clear sections: problem context, recommended flow, operation types, and parameter documentation. While comprehensive, every sentence adds value, though the operation type list is lengthy but necessary for completeness.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers the why (index arithmetic dangers), how (recommended flow), what (operation types), and parameter details. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling information, but this is compensated by the thorough behavioral context.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail. It defines document_id as 'The Google Docs document ID' and provides comprehensive documentation for the operations parameter structure, including the type field with all valid values, address field examples, and params field purpose.

  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 purpose: 'Make changes to a Google Doc' with specific details about handling index arithmetic and compiling semantic intent into correct request sequences. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning read_document as part of the recommended flow and implicitly contrasting with validate_operations by focusing on execution rather than validation.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'call read_document first, then describe your changes using heading names or named ranges as addresses.' It also implicitly advises against manual batchUpdate construction by explaining the risks, effectively stating when not to use alternatives.

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