Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• format_from_linkedinA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses async behavior ('Returns a record_id; poll check_status') and indicates that input must be pasted text rather than auto-scraped. However, it omits critical details such as whether the tool mutates data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

  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: two sentences and a parenthetical. It front-loads the core purpose and async workflow. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

  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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and involves async polling, the description provides a coherent high-level workflow (paste text → record_id → poll). However, it lacks specifics about the output types (docx/pptx/xlsx), the role of template_type, and what constitutes valid input. Error conditions and the overall user context are not addressed.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description complements the schema by explaining the main parameter (profile_text) and providing guidance on template_id ('call list_document_types first'). Other parameters (candidate_name, output_format, template_type) are not elaborated beyond the schema. Overall, the description adds marginal value.

  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 ('Turn') and clearly identifies the resource ('LinkedIn profile') and the output ('polished, branded resume or candidate profile'). It also references the polling workflow via a sibling tool, which helps distinguish it from other tools.

  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 for LinkedIn profiles and suggests installing a Chrome extension for automated capture, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_document or what scenarios to avoid. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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

• generate_documentA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous (returns a record_id, requires polling check_status). It does not mention authentication, error handling, or side effects, but for a generation tool the async behavior is the key trait.

  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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds scope, workflow, and sibling reference. Information is front-loaded.

  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 5 parameters, no output schema, and absent annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage flow, and key parameters. It mentions the async polling pattern and references sibling tools, though it could briefly note error scenarios or limits.

  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?

  All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing list_document_types for template_id and template_type, and noting default output_format, but largely mirrors schema descriptions.

  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 generates a branded, personalized talent document from candidate text, and specifies it works for any document type from list_document_types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like format_from_linkedin and check_status by naming the specific resource and output.

  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 this tool: after selecting a document type via list_document_types, and then polling check_status for the result. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and the workflow is outlined.

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

• claim_accessA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but description discloses that the tool returns an API key, its sensitivity, and storage recommendation. Adequate for a free access claim tool.

  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 with no wasted words. Front-loads purpose and includes actionable guidance. Excellent conciseness.

  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 purpose, eligibility, and output handling. With simple input and no output schema, it is sufficient. Could mention one-time use, but not critical.

  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% with clear property description. Description adds context about eligibility but doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond schema. 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?

  Clearly states the action 'Get FREE Formatix access' and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_document or check_status.

  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?

  Explicitly specifies eligibility (company email only) and implicitly provides context for when to use. Could mention alternatives if already have access, but still strong.

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

• check_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses the polling behavior, status interpretations, and that it returns a download link. It does not mention rate limits or resource consumption, but for a read-only polling tool this is sufficient.

  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 purpose, second explains status values and actions. No redundancy, every word contributes.

  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?

  Given the simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely covers polling behavior, status values, and appropriate follow-up actions, making it fully self-contained.

  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 schema description for record_id already specifies it comes from generate_document or format_from_linkedin. The tool description adds no extra parameter info, so 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 'check' and the resource 'generated document', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_document and format_from_linkedin which are for generation, not status polling.

  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 the three possible statuses and how to react: poll for 'Processing', share URL for 'Formatted', and treat 'Failed' accordingly. It implies usage after generation tools via the parameter description, but doesn't explicitly state when to call or list alternatives.

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

• list_document_typesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 the tool lists documents with formats, which is a read-only operation. While it doesn't explicitly state it is non-destructive or idempotent, the nature of listing is inferred. A score of 4 is appropriate as it is clear enough for a simple list 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage. It lists examples and gives guidance without unnecessary words. Slightly more structure (e.g., splitting into purpose and usage) could improve readability, but it is already concise.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the response contains (document list with output formats) and why to call it. It covers the essential information for an agent to use the tool correctly in the workflow.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, hence baseline 4 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 lists branded talent documents with output formats, using specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings by directly mentioning its role in selecting a template_id for generate_document.

  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 explicitly says 'Call this first to choose a template_id for generate_document', providing clear when-to-use and a link to a sibling tool, making usage unambiguous.

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