Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_shaka_packagerC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool runs a command but doesn't explain what Shaka Packager is, what the command does (e.g., video packaging, transcoding), potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), or any requirements like permissions or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating parameter details into a single sentence without losing clarity.

  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 the tool's complexity (running a custom command with two parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent 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?

  The description adds basic semantics for both parameters ('file_path' and 'command_args'), explaining their purposes beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it lacks details on formats (e.g., what 'command_args' should include) or constraints, providing only minimal value over the bare schema. With two parameters and low schema coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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: 'Run a custom Shaka Packager command.' This specifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('Shaka Packager command'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_video' or 'get_shaka_options', which prevents a perfect score.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this is preferred, such as for custom packaging versus standard analysis or documentation retrieval. This lack of comparative usage information limits its helpfulness.

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

• analyze_videoB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the tool analyzes a video file but doesn't describe what the analysis entails (e.g., format detection, metadata extraction, error checking), how long it might take, whether it modifies the file, or any rate limits. The mention of 'file:// URI from the filesystem MCP' hints at integration but lacks depth. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, with the second providing parameter details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). It earns its place but isn't perfectly polished.

  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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low parameter complexity (1 param with 0% schema coverage), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple analysis tool, it's acceptable but has clear gaps in guiding the agent.

  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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'file_path' by explaining it can be a local file path or a file:// URI from the filesystem MCP, which clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't detail constraints like supported file formats or path examples, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 ('Analyze a video file') and the resource ('video file'), and mentions the specific tool used ('Shaka Packager'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_shaka_documentation, get_shaka_options, run_shaka_packager), which would require a 5. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 its siblings. It mentions the tool's capability but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose analyze_video over run_shaka_packager or how it relates to get_shaka_options. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• get_shaka_optionsB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to describe key traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists), or any potential side effects like network calls or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

  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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but more guidance on when and how to use this tool would improve completeness.

  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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, as none are needed, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters. No compensation is required, and it avoids redundancy.

  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 the resource 'available options and version information for Shaka Packager', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_shaka_documentation', which might also provide information about Shaka Packager, leaving some ambiguity about differentiation.

  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 'get_shaka_documentation' or 'run_shaka_packager'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether Shaka Packager needs to be installed or configured, or any exclusions for usage scenarios.

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

• get_shaka_documentationB
  3.3/5.0
  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 states the tool retrieves documentation but doesn't specify format (e.g., HTML, text), access requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage, though it correctly implies a read-only operation.

  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 ('Get comprehensive Shaka Packager documentation') and adds useful details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a 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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does, though it lacks behavioral details like output format or usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more guidance on when to use it would enhance completeness.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

  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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Shaka Packager documentation'), including scope details like 'command structure and examples'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_shaka_options' by focusing on documentation rather than configuration options, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

  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 'get_shaka_options' or 'run_shaka_packager', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose, lacking explicit context for selection.

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