Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the full text content, which is helpful. No hidden behavioral traits are disclosed, but the combination 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?

  The description is only two sentences long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives the workflow. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions 'full text content' and the prerequisite workflow. However, it could mention potential limitations like file size or encoding, but overall it's complete enough.

  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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for file_id ('The Google Drive file ID (obtained from list_files)'). The description reinforces this by referencing the workflow, but adds little beyond the schema.

  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 'read' and the resource 'file', specifying it returns 'full text content'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_files (which lists files) and search_content (which searches content).

  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 a typical workflow: call list_files first to get the file id, then use this tool. It gives clear context for usage but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

• list_foldersA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON array with 'id' and 'name', and explains how to pass the folder id to list_files. This provides helpful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes usage guidance and output format without unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with one parameter, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it (before list_files), and what it returns. No important gaps remain.

  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 a well-described 'recursive' parameter. The description doesn't add extra parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

  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 subfolders in Google Drive, uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('subfolders'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_files, read_file, and search_content by mentioning its use for scoping searches.

  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 explicitly advises using this tool before list_files to scope a search, providing clear context. It doesn't cover when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended use.

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

• search_contentA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Consistent with readOnlyHint annotation; adds context that it returns matching files with a surrounding snippet. No contradictions.

  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?

  Very concise: two short paragraphs. Purpose stated first, then differentiation, then workflow. No fluff.

  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 an output schema exists, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. No missing critical information.

  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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

  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 ('Search') and resource ('content of files'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_files by stating it searches inside file contents rather than filenames.

  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?

  Provides a clear typical workflow (search then read_file) and contrasts with list_files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or any prerequisites.

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

• list_filesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Description discloses that the tool is read-only (consistent with annotations), returns a JSON array with specific fields (id, name, mimeType), and guides the agent to pass the id to read_file. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

  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 concise with two main sentences plus a sentence about return format. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, with no extraneous words.

  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 4 parameters (none required), an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage guidance. It does not delve into edge cases, but the schema and output schema provide the rest. It is complete enough for agent selection and invocation.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds extra context: folder_id comes from list_folders, and recursive is recommended when folder_id is set. This adds meaning beyond the 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?

  Description clearly states 'List files in the target Google Drive folders' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Use this to discover files before reading them' and mentions read_file, which is a sibling. This provides clear differentiation.

  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 says 'Use this to discover files before reading them,' which gives a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives to sibling tools like search_content, but the context is adequate for selection.

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