Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• smartling-lsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the path restriction and default path behavior, which is useful. Yet it does not explain the output format, error handling, or what happens for invalid paths, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

  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 that convey the purpose, the key constraint, and the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical 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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, where it works, and the default path. It lacks details about the return format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of schema information, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

  The input schema already fully describes the 'path' parameter (100% coverage), including the requirement to start with /smartling and an example. The description adds the default value behavior ('Defaults to /smartling if no path given'), which slightly enhances the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding substantial new semantic information.

  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 ('List files') and the resource ('smartling working directory'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like smartling-cli or smartling-cat, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a clear constraint ('Only works within /smartling') and a default behavior when no path is given, which helps the agent understand context. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, so usage guidelines are only implied rather than explicit.

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

• smartling-catA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Print the contents' and 'read source files', clearly indicating a read-only operation. It also specifies the output goes 'to the conversation', providing transparency about the 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 two sentences: the first states the primary function, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

  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?

  The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema) and the description covers the path restriction, the purpose, and typical use cases. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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% for the single 'path' parameter, including the /smartling restriction and an example. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool prints file contents from /smartling, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like smartling-ls, but the 'contents' vs listing is implicit.

  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 explicit use cases: 'Use this to read source files before uploading or to inspect downloaded translations.' It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

• smartling-cliA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: automatic injection of SMARTLING_ACCOUNT_ID, the double-path pitfall, the need for --directory on pulls, and the availability of --help for each command. It also lists command categories with flags, making side effects (delete, import) transparent.

  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 long but extremely well-structured with clear sections, code examples, and front-loaded invocation instructions. Every section contributes practical value, and the verbose length is justified by the tool's broad CLI wrapper scope.

  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?

  The description covers all major command groups (projects, files, mt, glossaries), global flags, environment variable handling, examples, and links to full documentation. With no output schema, it compensates by showing expected outputs in examples and directing users to --help for deeper detail.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The single 'args' parameter has a minimal schema description, but the tool description massively enriches it with exact formatting rules, file URI conventions, examples, and flag explanations, providing far more meaning than the schema alone.

  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 that the tool runs any smartling-cli command with arguments passed as a single string. It provides extensive command syntax, examples, and scope, making the purpose unmistakable even without explicit 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives detailed operational guidance (file URI conventions, global flags, account ID injection) but does not specify when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (smartling-ls, smartling-cat) and lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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