Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• upload_audioC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement but nothing else: no mention of side effects (e.g., resource creation, overwrite behavior), rate limits, or what happens on duplicate files. This is insufficient for an upload tool.

  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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It lacks structure—no front-loading of critical usage instructions. It earns its place but doesn't do enough.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return value, parameter roles, or how to successfully invoke the tool. Essential context is missing.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema has 7 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds zero information about parameter meanings, valid values, formats, or constraints. The agent has no way to correctly populate inputs.

  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 ('upload an audio file') and the target platform ('RedPanal'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools (download_sample, get_audio_detail, list_audios) which perform different operations. However, it lacks details on what 'upload' entails (e.g., creating vs replacing).

  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 vs alternatives (e.g., when to download instead). No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states the action without any conditional advice.

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

• list_audiosC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description fails to disclose behavior such as pagination, response format, authentication needs, or read-only nature. Only mentions 'optional filters', leaving significant behavioral gaps.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it may be overly minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation. It is not verbose, but earns a 3 for being adequate in length.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, response structure, and any interaction with sibling tools. Fails to provide a complete picture.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%. Description only says 'with optional filters', not explaining each parameter (genre, tag, page, page_size). Does not add meaning beyond the parameter names in 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'audios', and source 'RedPanal', with mention of optional filters. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_audio_detail or download_sample, leaving room for ambiguity.

  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 siblings. Does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage cues beyond stating optional filters.

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

• download_sampleC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions downloading, converting to WAV, and returning info_txt plus JSON, but omits side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. Critical gaps for a mutation-like operation.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the action and result. However, could be slightly more structured by separating functionality and return value.

  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 a single parameter and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and return format, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, and constraints. A download tool might benefit from mentioning file size limits or required permissions.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'by its url' without clarifying expected format (e.g., full URL, path only), validity, or examples. The schema provides the parameter name and title but no description, so the description adds minimal extra meaning.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool downloads a sound from RedPanal.org and converts to WAV. The verb 'downloads' and resource 'sound' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings which likely handle listing, details, and uploading.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audio_detail or list_audios. The description implies use for downloading and converting but offers no when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• get_audio_detailC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only says 'get' implying read-only, but does not disclose what details are returned, authentication needs, or any side effects.

  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?

  Very concise with one sentence, front-loaded verb. No wasted words, though could benefit from brief context on return value.

  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?

  Lacks output schema and does not describe what 'details' means. Incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data; agent cannot infer what fields are available.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'audio_id' and type integer. Does not explain how to obtain the ID or its format.

  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 explicitly states it gets audio details by ID, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like download_sample, list_audios, and upload_audio.

  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 vs alternatives, such as list_audios for browsing. Only implies usage when an ID is known.

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