Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• export_diagramB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains format-specific export behaviors (drawio copies XML; others use local exporter). However, it omits side effects, required session state, or whether the file must already exist, leaving gaps.

  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?

  Two sentences convey the essential purpose and format-specific behavior without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value, making it highly 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 no output schema, no annotations, and only 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description lacks critical context: prerequisites (e.g., active session), return value, error conditions, and exact file location semantics. Incomplete for an exporter tool.

  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. It implies 'path' refers to the current local .drawio file and mentions format alternatives, but does not specify path constraints (e.g., absolute/relative) or format implications beyond the enum. Missing details on required parameter semantics.

  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 exports a local .drawio file and lists output formats. The action (export) and resource are unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_diagram or edit_diagram, which might also handle file output.

  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 get_diagram or create_new_diagram. No context about prerequisites or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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

• create_new_diagramB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It states local saving and opening in Draw.io, which imply persistence and external interaction. However, it does not detail error cases, return values, or whether prior diagrams are affected, leaving gaps.

  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 immediately states the action. No filler or redundant information. Highly efficient.

  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 sibling tools (edit, get, export), the description fails to explain how the created diagram is identified or retrieved later. It omits return values (e.g., diagram ID) and whether it overwrites existing files, making it incomplete for practical use.

  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 already describes the 'xml' parameter as 'Complete mxGraphModel or mxfile XML.' The description essentially repeats this, adding no new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing the format. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 verb (create) and resource (new diagram) along with the input format (mxGraphModel or mxfile XML). It distinguishes from sibling tools (edit, export, get) by focusing on creation.

  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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the action alone.

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

• edit_diagramA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the edit operations but fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., file modification, saving behavior), required permissions, or error conditions.

  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 compact two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and tacks on a helpful recommendation without redundancy.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with a nested array parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits workflow details (e.g., need for an existing file, persistence model, error handling) and does not clarify the expected behavior of each operation.

  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% and the description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions ID-based and operation types, but does not explain the role of new_xml or the structure of operations array in detail. The agent must infer from the JSON 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 'Edit', the resource 'local .drawio file', and the method 'ID-based add/update/delete operations'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_new_diagram and get_diagram.

  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?

  It provides a usage hint by recommending get_diagram before editing, but does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like create_new_diagram or export_diagram, nor mention when not to use.

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

• start_sessionA
  3.8/5.0
  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 action without disclosing behavioral traits such as what happens if no file is open or if the desktop app is not installed.

  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 sentence, concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete, though it could mention prerequisites such as needing a .drawio file open or the desktop app installed.

  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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the action but there is no need to explain parameters.

  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 'Open' and the specific resource 'current .drawio file' and the target 'locally installed Draw.io desktop app'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which handle creation, editing, exporting, and retrieval.

  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 when a .drawio file is present and the user wants to open it in the desktop app, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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

• get_diagramA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation (non-destructive) but lacks details about potential behavioral traits such as session dependencies, file locking, or return format nuances.

  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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous words or redundant information.

  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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential information. However, it could mention the relationship to the 'start_session' sibling or any prerequisites, but it's largely complete.

  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?

  No parameters are defined, so the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate given no additional parameter information is needed.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current local .drawio file XML'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_new_diagram, edit_diagram, export_diagram, and start_session.

  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 reading the current diagram file, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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