Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• plsreadme_share_fileB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint=true' by stating it uploads the file and may update existing links, indicating a write operation. This is a serious inconsistency, so score 1 as per rules.

  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?

  Four concise sentences, no redundant information. The first sentence captures the primary purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds relevant detail without excess.

  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 output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior: reading, uploading, updating if previously shared, and tracking links. It lacks details on error cases or URL format, but overall sufficient.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'file_path' is well-described in the schema. The description adds context about reading and uploading the file, but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

  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 shares a local markdown file as a web link, with specific verb 'Share' and resource 'local markdown file'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'share_text' (which shares raw text) and 'update' (which updates existing links).

  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 markdown file needs sharing, and mentions updating existing links. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or provide guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'share_text' or 'update'.

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

• plsreadme_listA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the detail that it reads from a local file, which is useful but not essential beyond the 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 front-load the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous 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 simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior (lists all documents) and return fields. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

  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?

  There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description provides no contradictory or missing information.

  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 specifically states the action (list all documents), the resource (plsreadme documents tracked in the local .plsreadme file), and the output fields (IDs, titles, URLs, source files). It clearly distinguishes from sibling operations like delete, share, and update.

  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 its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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

• plsreadme_share_textA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes creating a share link and tracking in a local file, which contradicts that. Description adds context about tracking but fails to resolve the contradiction.

  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 with no wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

  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?

  No output schema, but description mentions the return value (permanent URL) and tracking behavior, covering key aspects. Lacks mention of rate limits or authentication, but acceptable for a simple tool.

  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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by stating markdown is preferred but plain text accepted, and title is auto-detected if omitted.

  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 shares text as a clean web link, accepts markdown or plain text, and distinguishes from siblings like share_file which handles files.

  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 explains when to use it (to share text) and implies alternatives by naming siblings, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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

• plsreadme_deleteA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds that deletion is 'permanently' and reveals that the tool 'Looks up the admin token from the local .plsreadme record file,' which is a behavioral dependency beyond the 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?

  Two succinct sentences: first states the primary action, second provides key constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

  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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, permanence, and a prerequisite. The token lookup detail is helpful. It could mention error handling or confirmation, but overall is adequate for an agent.

  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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds the critical constraint that 'Requires either the document ID or the original file path,' clarifying that they are alternatives, which the schema's optionality does not convey.

  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 action: 'Delete a plsreadme document permanently.' The verb 'Delete' and the resource 'plsreadme document' are specific. The description distinguishes from siblings (list, share, update) as there is no other delete tool.

  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 a usage prerequisite: requires either document ID or file path. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or offer alternatives to alternatives to deletion. The guidance is minimal but present.

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

• plsreadme_updateA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Adds context beyond annotations: authentication via local file, alternative identifiers. Consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. No contradictions.

  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, first states action, second details requirements. No redundant information, highly efficient.

  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?

  Covers action, required params, and identification method. Lacks error handling details or return type, but sufficient for a simple update tool with idempotent hint.

  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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by clarifying id and file_path are alternatives, not both required. Enhances understanding of parameter relationships.

  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 'Update' and the resource 'existing plsreadme document'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (delete, list, share) by specifying content update.

  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?

  Provides guidance on required parameters (either id or file_path) and mentions a prerequisite (admin token lookup). Could explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but siblings are distinct actions.

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