Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_diagramC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that it generates diagrams 'using Graphviz.' It does not disclose whether it writes a file, overwrites existing outputs, requires Graphviz to be installed, what format it produces, or what the return/response looks like.

  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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, which makes it easy to parse. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and usage context.

  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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague 'data' parameter, the description is too thin to be complete. It fails to explain the expected input format, supported output behavior, or how to choose between the enum values, so an agent would need external knowledge to call it correctly.

  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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the data, type, title, and output parameters, so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. The description's mention of Graphviz hints at the data format but does not clarify what 'text description or JSON' should contain.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names the resource ('diagrams') with concrete examples (flowchart, org chart, mind map), making the tool's core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_chart, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them and omits the 'mermaid' type allowed by the schema.

  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 choose this tool over sibling tools such as create_chart, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it is for diagrams, which is already obvious from the name and description.

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

• get_file_infoC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies a read operation, but the description does not state what information is returned, whether the file must exist, or what side effects, if any, could occur.

  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, efficient sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and subject, though it sacrifices useful detail.

  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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'information' means and what the tool returns, but it does not. An agent cannot know whether the tool returns metadata, content, or something else, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

  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 schema already describes the only parameter as 'Path to the Office file', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter, but it does not need to since the schema is sufficient.

  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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('information about an Office file'), so an agent can tell it is a read-oriented operation. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like search_in_folder or parse_references, but the intent is clear enough.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be chosen.

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

• edit_pptxB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It omits the important default behavior that outputPath overwrites the input file, and it claims "modify content" even though the schema only supports adding slides, not editing existing content.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is short and front-loaded, but the phrase "modify content" is redundant with "add slides" and misleading given the schema. It is concise, yet not every element earns its place.

  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 tool with a nested addSlides schema and no annotations, the description should clarify that outputPath defaults to overwriting the input file and that only adding slides is supported. It currently provides only high-level intent and a misleading "modify content" phrase.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level details beyond loosely naming "add slides" and "modify content", which maps to addSlides but not precisely.

  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 names a specific action and resource: "Edit an existing PowerPoint (PPTX)", which clearly distinguishes it from create_pptx. However, "modify content" is vague and slightly overstates the schema, which only supports adding slides.

  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 word "existing" implies this tool is for files that already exist, giving some contextual guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus create_pptx or alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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

• create_chartB
  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 of disclosing side effects. It says it generates charts, but does not state that it writes a file to the output path, what file type is produced, whether existing files are overwritten, or how success/failure is reported. The Matplotlib reference hints at implementation but not at runtime behavior.

  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 with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is compact and lists chart types efficiently. However, the brevity contributes to the behavioral and contextual gaps scored elsewhere.

  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?

  With no annotations and no output schema, the description is not operationally complete for a tool with six parameters and file output. It does not mention that a chart file is created, what return or confirmation the agent can expect, or how the output extension is resolved. The schema covers parameter names, but the description lacks the behavioral context needed for confident invocation.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description repeats the chart-type and data concepts found in the schema but does not explain the JSON shape of 'data' or the meaning of 'output file path (without extension)'. It adds no actionable meaning beyond the schema.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the resource (charts) with explicit supported types ('bar, line, scatter, pie, heatmap'). It also names the underlying library (Matplotlib), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like create_diagram. However, it omits 'grouped_bar' from the schema enum and doesn't explicitly contrast with create_diagram.

  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 phrase 'Generate charts ... from data' provides an implicit usage signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_diagram. The description does not state prerequisites for the data format or distinguish itself from file-creation siblings. It is functional but leaves selection logic to inference.

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

• create_docxB
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a Word document (DOCX) with content' and does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are required, or how the document is assembled beyond the schema.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise enough to be parsed instantly, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage detail.

  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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens after creation, how content blocks map to document elements, or when to prefer this over edit_docx. The schema covers parameters well, but contextual guidance is missing.

  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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema thoroughly documents outputPath, content, and title. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither compensates nor detracts; the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Word document (DOCX) with content.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling creation tools like create_pptx and create_xlsx, and from edit_docx by emphasizing creation rather than modification.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as edit_docx or the other create_* tools. An agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

• generate_bibliographyB
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool writes to the outputPath, returns a string, or both; nor does it disclose default style behavior, error conditions, or side effects. 'Generate' implies a non-destructive operation, but important output behavior is omitted.

  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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, but it is slightly too terse to fully compensate for the missing behavioral details.

  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 that the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an optional outputPath that hints at file-writing behavior, the description should clarify what the tool returns or saves. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's observable effects.

  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 all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds only contextual meaning to 'references' by confirming they are parsed references; style and outputPath semantics are fully covered by the schema.

  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 states a clear action ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('a formatted bibliography'), and an input source ('from parsed references'). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling parse_references, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with format_citation.

  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 phrase 'from parsed references' implies this tool is intended to be used after parse_references has produced reference data, which provides clear upsteam context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when format_citation would be a better choice.

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

• create_xlsxB
  3.2/5.0
  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 only says 'Create' which implies a write operation, but does not mention overwrite behavior, file existence handling, permissions, or whether the operation is pure file creation. There is no mention of failure modes or side effects beyond creating a file.

  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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource. However, it lacks depth that could be included without much added length, so it's efficient but minimally informative.

  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?

  For a tool with only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain how sheets, headers, and rows interact, or any constraints (e.g., header alignment to rows). The schema covers parameter details, but the description provides no strategic context an agent might need to decide how to structure inputs.

  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% (both outputPath and sheets have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating 'with sheets and data', which is already implied by the schema. It does not clarify row/header relationships or formatting nuances.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an Excel spreadsheet (XLSX)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_xlsx, create_docx, and create_pptx by naming the output type and action. It's unambiguous.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like edit_xlsx, create_docx, etc., but the description doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• format_citationB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation and does not mention input expectations, return format, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple formatting tool, though it is too terse to fully carry behavioral transparency.

  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?

  For a simple single-citation formatter, the description plus fully documented schema provides enough to attempt invocation. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value, which is a meaningful gap given annotations are absent.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the style enum and reference field. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond echoing that a style is specified, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Format') and a clear resource ('a single citation'), with the style controlled by the schema's enum. It is not tautological and is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate from generate_bibliography beyond the word 'single.'

  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 phrase 'single citation' implies this tool is for formatting one reference at a time, which weakly contrasts with generate_bibliography, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not state alternatives or conditions for choosing parse_references versus this tool.

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

• parse_referencesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool parses files and extracts metadata, but it does not explicitly state that files are unmodified, describe the output structure, or mention any side effects or access 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core operation and lists key formats. Every word adds relevant information, with no filler or 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?

  For a simple two-parameter tool, the description plus complete input schema covers the basics of invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the exact shape of extracted metadata and behavioral caveats unspecified, making it adequate but not fully complete.

  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 both inputPath and format having descriptions and format having an enum. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline expectation.

  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 states a specific verb ('parse'), a clear resource ('citation files'), and enumerates the supported formats (BibTeX, RIS, JSON). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_bibliography and format_citation, which perform different operations on citations.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use for existing citation files, and does not mention sibling tools such as generate_bibliography or format_citation or explain when each should be preferred.

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

• create_project_structureB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that folders are created but does not reveal whether existing folders are overwritten, whether parent directories are created, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. For a mutating filesystem operation, this is a notable gap.

  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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant or filler content.

  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?

  The parameter set is simple, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description omits important context such as behavior on existing folders, path validation, and the operation's return value. For a side-effecting tool, this is under-specified.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema: 'projectName' and 'basePath' are already self-explanatory, and the mentioned folder types only hint at the internal structure rather than parameter details.

  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 ('Create') and resource ('research project folder structure') and lists its contents ('assets, citations, documents'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that create or edit individual files like documents, spreadsheets, or presentations.

  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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when setting up a research project folder hierarchy. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer the right choice from the tool name and description.

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

• edit_docxA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'edit', 'add', 'replace', or 'modify', which already implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the input is overwritten by default, how formatting is affected, or what happens when the file doesn't exist.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and key actions with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

  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?

  The schema is rich and covers all parameters, but the description itself provides little high-level context about how operations compose, how replacement works, or the default overwrite behavior. The combination is workable but leaves the agent inferring important behavior from the schema alone.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents inputPath, operations, and outputPath. The description's 'add content, replace text' loosely maps to operations but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('existing Word document (DOCX)') and lists concrete capabilities: add content, replace text, or modify. This clearly distinguishes it from create_docx and from the PPTX/XLSX edit tools by file type.

  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 word 'existing' implies this tool is not for creating new documents, and 'Word document' implies it is for DOCX rather than PPTX/XLSX. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives such as create_docx.

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

• create_pptxA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does state the core behavior of creating a PPTX file, but it does not mention side effects such as whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, what the tool returns, or any file-system interactions. The behavior is mostly inferable from the 'Create' verb and the outputPath parameter, but additional transparency would help.

  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 with front-loaded action and resource. It contains no unnecessary jargon or filler. The phrase 'with slides' is slightly redundant for a PPTX but still clarifies the expected content, so it does not meaningfully hurt 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?

  The schema provides strong coverage of the parameters, including the nested slide structure and output path, so the description does not need to restate those details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks information about return values, overwrite behavior, and when to choose this tool over edit_pptx or other create tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps around usage and side effects.

  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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a description in the input schema, so the burden on the tool description is low. The description itself adds no new semantic detail beyond the word 'slides', which corresponds directly to the slides parameter. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 names the operation ('Create') and the specific resource ('PowerPoint presentation (PPTX)'), distinguishing it from sibling file-creation tools like create_docx and create_xlsx. Including 'with slides' also disambiguates the expected artifact. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

  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 should be used for creating new PPTX files, and the sibling list includes edit_pptx, which implies a logical counterpart. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like create_docx or create_xlsx. The usage context is inferred from the name and file type rather than stated.

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

• edit_xlsxA
  3.7/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions add/update operations but does not disclose that outputPath defaults to overwriting the input, that deleteSheet is also supported, or any side effects or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

  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 one front-loaded, efficient sentence. It states the tool's purpose immediately and then gives representative actions; every word earns its place.

  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?

  The input schema is rich and covers all parameters, so an agent has enough structured information to invoke the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the minimal description leaves gaps around default overwrite behavior, deleteSheet support, and expected results. It is adequate but not complete.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only high-level operation names that map to the 'action' enum but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing Excel spreadsheet (XLSX)'), and gives concrete action examples: add rows, update cells, add sheets. The word 'existing' distinguishes this from create_xlsx, and the resource distinguishes it from edit_docx and edit_pptx.

  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 phrase 'Edit an existing Excel spreadsheet' clearly signals this tool is for modifying existing XLSX files, not creating new ones. It does not explicitly name create_xlsx or other alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

• search_in_folderA
  3.7/5.0
  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 restates the core search function and does not disclose whether the search is recursive, case-sensitive, content-only, or what the return value looks like.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the verb, object, and scope with minimal words.

  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?

  With the schema covering all parameters, an agent has enough to invoke the tool. However, the absence of any description of output or search behavior, combined with the ambiguous scope of 'all documents', leaves meaningful gaps.

  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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters, including the default file types. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so the baseline score of 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 states a clear action ('Search'), a clear object ('a term'), and a clear scope ('across all documents in a folder'). This makes the tool immediately distinct from sibling create/edit/document-management tools.

  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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a term needs to be found within a folder's documents. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools serve the same obvious search purpose.

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