Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_pdfC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the basic function but doesn't disclose traits like whether it's read-only, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. For a search tool, this leaves key operational aspects unclear.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (searching PDFs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., matches, positions, context), error cases, or limitations, leaving gaps in operational context.

  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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text search functionality, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

  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 action ('Search for specific text') and resource ('within a PDF file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_pdf' or 'read_pdf_page', which might also involve text extraction, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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_pdf_metadata' or 'read_pdf'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• read_pdf_pageB
  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 full burden. It states the action 'read' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, file size limits, rate limits, output format (e.g., text, images), error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place without 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, it should do more to explain what 'read' entails and potential limitations.

  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 fully documents all 4 parameters (path, page, startPage, endPage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'page or range of pages' which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb 'read' and the resource 'PDF file', specifying it's for 'a specific page or range of pages'. It distinguishes from sibling 'read_pdf' (likely reads entire PDF) and 'get_pdf_metadata' (metadata-focused), but doesn't explicitly mention 'search_pdf' (search-focused). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_pdf' (full PDF) or 'search_pdf' (content search). The description implies usage for partial reading but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

• read_pdfA
  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 carries the full burden. It mentions returning 'full text content and metadata', which is useful, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid paths, corrupted files), performance (e.g., large file handling), or limitations (e.g., OCR support, encrypted files). The description adds some value but is incomplete for 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently states the return values. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple read operation. It covers the purpose and return values, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., errors, limits) and output structure. It is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

  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%, with the parameter 'path' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of path formats or URL specifics). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 specific action ('read and extract text content') and resource ('from a PDF file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_pdf_metadata' (metadata only), 'read_pdf_page' (single page), and 'search_pdf' (search within content). It explicitly mentions both text extraction and metadata return.

  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 extracting full text and metadata from PDFs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_pdf_page' for single pages or 'search_pdf' for searching. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• get_pdf_metadataA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 states the tool extracts metadata 'without reading all content', which is useful behavioral context about performance/scope. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like error handling, permission requirements, rate limits, or what specific metadata fields are returned.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'Get metadata information' states the action, 'from a PDF file' specifies the resource, and 'without reading all content' provides important differentiation from sibling tools.

  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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and its scope. However, it doesn't describe what metadata is returned or potential limitations, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

  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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

  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 specific action ('Get metadata information') and resource ('from a PDF file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'without reading all content' - implying it's different from read_pdf, read_pdf_page, and search_pdf which likely involve content reading or searching.

  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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('without reading all content'), suggesting it's for lightweight metadata extraction rather than full content processing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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