Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_transcriptB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional timestamps but does not describe output format, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements (despite username/password params), or any side effects. The behavior is only superficially described.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch subtitles or transcript text') and mentions the key optional feature. Every word serves a purpose.

  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 absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of authentication-related parameters (username, password), the description should provide more context on return values, error scenarios, and authentication flow. As is, it leaves significant gaps for a non-trivial tool with 5 parameters.

  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 schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds 'optionally with timestamp segments' which corresponds to the timestamps parameter but does not enhance schema information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 the tool fetches subtitles or transcript text from a media URL with optional timestamps. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('subtitles or transcript text'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'extract_info' (metadata extraction) and 'search_media' (search).

  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. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools or provide context for preferred usage scenarios. The agent must infer use from the description alone.

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

• extract_infoA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Extract') and lists metadata fields, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or limitations. It mentions 'and more' vaguely.

  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, front-loaded with the operation, and includes a representative list. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and two siblings, the description gives a good overview but lacks usage context, return format details, and potential constraints (e.g., auth, rate limits). Adequate but incomplete.

  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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds an overview of the extracted metadata but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action ('Extract') and specific resource ('rich metadata from a media URL'), including a list of extracted items (title, description, duration, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings get_transcript and search_media.

  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. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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

• search_mediaA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool uses yt-dlp search, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.

  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 concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, scope, and supplementary nature. No redundant words; every sentence adds 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?

  The description explains the tool's purpose and method, but lacks details about output structure or how results relate to sibling tools (extract_info, get_transcript). Without an output schema, the description should guide the agent on what to expect from results. Adequate but not fully complete.

  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 each parameter fully described. The tool description adds context about yt-dlp and platform mapping (e.g., 'youtube → ytsearch:'), but the schema already covers the enum values. Thus, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

  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 explicitly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'media', specifies supported platforms (YouTube, etc.) and the underlying technology (yt-dlp), and clarifies its role as a supplementary discovery tool, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like extract_info and get_transcript.

  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 mentions it is a 'supplementary discovery tool meant to complement web search', implying when to use it for media discovery, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides implied context but lacks clear exclusions.

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