Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_docx_file_to_mdA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: output file location (saved alongside input) and return value (Markdown content). However, it doesn't mention error handling, file size limits, format compatibility, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 with zero waste: first states core function, second adds crucial behavioral details (output location and return value). It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently covers additional context without redundancy.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (file conversion), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and key behaviors but lacks parameter details and some operational constraints, leaving minor 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'path' parameter at all—no details on format, expected input type, or constraints. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.

  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 specific action (convert), source format (.docx), target format (.md), and distinguishes from siblings like convert_md_file_to_docx (reverse operation) and read/write_docx (different actions). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

  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 context (converting Word to Markdown) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like convert_md_file_to_docx or read_docx. It provides clear operational context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection or exclusions.

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

• convert_md_file_to_docxA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output location behavior (saved alongside input with same name and .docx extension), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention error handling, file size limits, formatting preservation, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a file conversion tool.

  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, zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence provides crucial behavioral detail about output location. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

  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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), a single parameter, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the conversion purpose and output location behavior. However, for a file operation tool, additional context about error conditions or limitations would make it more complete.

  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 description coverage is 0% (parameter 'path' has no description in schema), so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly explain the 'path' parameter, the context makes it clear this should be the path to a Markdown file. The description adds meaning by specifying the file type (.md) and the conversion outcome, though it could be more explicit about parameter expectations.

  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 specific action (convert), source format (Markdown .md file), and target format (Word .docx file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_docx_file_to_md (reverse conversion) and read_docx/write_docx (different operations).

  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 clear context for when to use this tool (converting from Markdown to Word format). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious (e.g., use convert_docx_file_to_md for reverse conversion).

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

• read_docxA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it reads and returns content as Markdown, but lacks details on error handling, file size limits, or performance aspects. It adds basic context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Both sentences are essential and waste no words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

  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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or limitations to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'path' parameter is for the document location but does not specify format or constraints. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description adds some meaning by linking it to Word documents, though more detail would improve clarity.

  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 specific action ('Read a Word (.docx) document') and the resource type, with a precise outcome ('return its full content as Markdown text'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_docx_file_to_md' by emphasizing reading rather than conversion, and from 'write_docx' by focusing on input rather than output.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user asks you to read, summarise, edit, or work with a Word document'), which covers common scenarios. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'convert_docx_file_to_md' for different purposes, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• write_docxA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool saves to disk (a behavioral trait) and specifies the output path format, but lacks details on error handling, file overwriting behavior, or performance characteristics. It adequately covers the core action but misses some operational nuances.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter specifics in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. Minor gaps remain in behavioral details like error handling.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that 'markdown' is the input text and 'output_path' should be an absolute path ending in .docx, adding crucial semantic context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail markdown formatting support or path validation rules.

  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 specific action ('Convert Markdown text to a Word (.docx) document and save it to disk') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'convert_md_file_to_docx' (which likely processes files rather than text) and 'read_docx' (which reads rather than writes). It uses precise verbs and specifies the resource type.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user asks you to create or save a Word document from text or Markdown content'), providing clear context for its application. It also implies differentiation from siblings by focusing on text input rather than file processing.

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