Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ingest_data_toolB
  3.1/5.0
  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 reveals that the operation is blocking ('Wait until the data is fully ingested') and indicates success/failure through a return message. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as what types of data are supported, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing data in the index, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits.

  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 front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter and return details. The three-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the narrative flow. There's no wasted text, but minor improvements in cohesion are possible.

  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 complexity of a data ingestion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks details on data formats, indexing behavior, error scenarios, and what 'fully ingested' entails. For a tool that modifies an index, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure safe and effective 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 description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'directory' parameter is 'The directory to load data from,' which slightly clarifies the purpose but doesn't provide format requirements (e.g., local path, network path), supported directory structures, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but leaves gaps in practical usage details.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Loads') and resource ('data from a directory into the Ragie index'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'retrieve_data_tool' and 'show_video_tool' by focusing on ingestion rather than retrieval or display. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar ingestion tools beyond the named siblings.

  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 implied usage guidance through the instruction 'Wait until the data is fully ingested before continuing,' suggesting this is a blocking operation that should be used when immediate continuation isn't needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch vs. streaming ingestion) or any prerequisites for the directory structure.

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

• retrieve_data_toolB
  3.1/5.0
  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 discloses that data is returned as a list of dictionaries with specific keys, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The structure includes sections for Args and Returns, which is efficient. However, the 'Returns' section partially repeats information from the description body, slightly reducing conciseness.

  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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral transparency, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

  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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'query' parameter is 'The query to retrieve data from the Ragie index,' clarifying its purpose and usage. With only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., query format).

  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's purpose: 'Retrieves data from the Ragie index based on the query.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('data from the Ragie index'), and mechanism ('based on the query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingest_data_tool' or 'show_video_tool', which would require a 5.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage. The only implied usage is for retrieving data from the Ragie index, but this is basic and lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

• show_video_toolB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates and saves a video chunk (implying a write/mutation operation) and returns a success message, which is basic behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 well-structured with separate sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence adds value (purpose, parameters, return). It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the purpose statement earlier without the parameter details inline.

  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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, output format beyond a string message, or how the video chunk is stored/accessed, which are important for a creation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents all three parameters (document_name, start_time, end_time) with brief semantics, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify units for times (e.g., seconds) or document name format, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 'creates and saves a video chunk' with specific resources (document name, start time, end time), providing a concrete verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (ingest_data_tool, retrieve_data_tool) which appear to handle different operations, so it misses full differentiation.

  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 like ingest_data_tool or retrieve_data_tool. The description mentions creating video chunks but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving usage context implied at best.

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