Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• SpotifyGetInfoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get detailed information') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

  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 complexity of retrieving varied Spotify item types and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., track metadata, artist albums), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured safety or output guidance, more context is needed.

  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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (item_id and qtype with default and effects). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for item_id or nuances in qtype behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a Spotify item'), specifying the item types (track, album, artist, or playlist). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like SpotifySearch, which might also retrieve information but through search queries rather than direct ID lookup.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SpotifySearch or other siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or specific scenarios where this direct ID lookup is preferred over search-based methods.

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

• SpotifyQueueC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions two actions (get and add), it doesn't describe what 'get' returns (queue structure, track information), what happens when adding duplicates, whether there are queue size limits, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that modifies playback state, this is insufficient behavioral context.

  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 - a single sentence with two clear clauses separated by a dash. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.

  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 that this is a playback queue management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' returns (queue structure), what format track_id should be in, whether there are constraints on queue operations, or how this integrates with the broader Spotify playback system. For a tool that both reads and modifies state, more context is needed.

  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 description mentions 'get the queue or add tracks' which aligns with the 'action' parameter having 'add' or 'get' values, and implies 'track_id' is needed for 'add'. However, with 100% schema description coverage where both parameters are well-documented in the schema, the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured data. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose as managing the playback queue with two specific actions (get or add tracks), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (SpotifyGetInfo, SpotifyPlayback, SpotifySearch) - all of which could potentially interact with queue functionality in some way.

  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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose 'get' versus 'add' actions, nor how this tool relates to the sibling tools (SpotifyPlayback in particular might have overlapping functionality). The description simply states what the tool does without providing usage context.

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

• SpotifySearchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search function but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of items with metadata). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., structured results, error cases), how results are ordered, or any behavioral nuances like rate limiting. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output info, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters (query, qtype, limit) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or qtype combinations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

  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 ('Search for') and resources ('tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo or SpotifyPlayback, which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SpotifyGetInfo or SpotifyPlayback. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context for searching versus direct retrieval, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• SpotifyPlaybackB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what each action does at a basic level, it lacks important behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during concurrent playback management. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear opening statement followed by bullet points for each action. Each bullet is concise and directly relevant. However, the repetition of the opening sentence in the schema description suggests some redundancy that could be eliminated.

  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?

  For a playback management tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or prerequisites. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves gaps.

  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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description lists the four action types but doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose as managing current playback with four specific actions (get, start, pause, skip), providing a verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like SpotifyQueue or SpotifySearch, which likely handle different aspects of Spotify functionality.

  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 implies usage context through action descriptions (e.g., 'get' for track information, 'skip' for skipping tracks), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SpotifyQueue or SpotifySearch. No when-not scenarios or clear alternatives are mentioned.

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