Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• youtube_searchB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and result type but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, required authentication, or the potential for side effects. The default behavior (e.g., always returns videos unless type is set) is not explained.

  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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is not verbose and contains no extraneous information, though it could be slightly more precise given the tool's actual capabilities.

  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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the returned 'ranked video results' contain (e.g., IDs, titles, thumbnails) or how ranking works. Given the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

  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 covers all three parameters (query, type, limit) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

  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 'Search' and resource 'YouTube', and mentions 'ranked video results', making the core purpose apparent. However, it is slightly misleading because the type parameter allows searching channels and playlists, not just videos. It distinguishes well from sibling tools (get_transcript, save_summary) which have different functions.

  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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. It gives only a general statement of searching YouTube, leaving usage context implied. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• youtube_get_transcriptB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching ('cache-aware'), auto-saving to the library, and the side effect of a potential yt-dlp download. This provides useful behavioral context 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two sentences efficiently convey the main action, key features (cache-aware, auto-save), and an important side effect. No fluff; every word 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?

  The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It does not. Additionally, the concept of 'library' is undefined, and error scenarios (e.g., missing transcript) are not addressed. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a significant gap.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., video is URL/ID, lang is BCP-47, fresh bypasses cache).

  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 it fetches a video's transcript using yt-dlp, with caching and auto-saving. It distinguishes from sibling tools like youtube_search and youtube_save_summary, though not explicitly, but the verb 'fetch' and resource 'transcript' make it distinct.

  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 mentions a potential one-time download on first use, hinting at a performance consideration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• youtube_save_summaryA
  3.6/5.0
  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 mentions the output format but does not disclose behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, idempotency, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

  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?

  Single sentence of 8 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. Perfectly concise.

  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?

  Despite moderate complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description is very short. It lacks information on return values, success/failure indications, idempotency, and preconditions. An agent would need additional heuristics to use this safely.

  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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the summary is 'host-generated' and stored as Markdown with frontmatter, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema 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 states the verb 'Persist' and the resource 'summary to the library', and specifies the format 'Markdown with frontmatter'. It distinguishes well from siblings 'youtube_get_transcript' and 'youtube_search', which are retrieval 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 implies usage for saving a host-generated summary, and the sibling tools are obviously different. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., summary must be generated by a host).

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