Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• configure_drum_controlsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly explains the tool generates XML structure, details comprehensive error handling with specific validation rules, and describes the success response format including MIDI CC mappings and parameter bindings.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, what the tool will do, error handling, success response) and appropriately sized. Every sentence adds value, though the bullet points could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

  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?

  For a complex configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavior, error handling, and response format. It covers what the tool does, how it validates inputs, and what it returns, though it could benefit from more parameter semantics and usage guidance.

  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 but only partially succeeds. While it mentions 'pitch controls with customizable ranges' and 'ADSR envelope settings', it doesn't explain the drumControls object structure or provide semantic context for the nested parameters. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 ('configure global pitch and envelope controls') and resource ('for each drum type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_wav_samples or generate_drum_groups. The first sentence provides a complete purpose statement with verb, resource, and scope.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this configuration should be applied, or how it relates to sibling tools like configure_mic_routing or configure_round_robin. The agent receives no usage context.

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

• configure_mic_routingA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behaviors: error handling (validations for mic positions, MIDI CC duplicates, routing conflicts) and success response (XML structure with routing, mappings, assignments). However, it lacks details on side effects, performance, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a configuration tool.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, error handling, success response) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some bullet points into flowing text without losing clarity.

  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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behaviors, and parameter semantics effectively. However, it lacks output details beyond XML content, and with no annotations, additional context like side effects or rate limits would improve completeness.

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

  Parameters5/5

  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 fully. It does so by explaining the purpose and structure of parameters: 'micBuses' for volume controls and routing, 'drumPieces' for samples with mic configurations. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying how parameters relate to the tool's functionality.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Configure multi-mic routing with MIDI controls for drum samples.' It specifies the exact actions (setting up volume controls, routing to auxiliary outputs, configuring MIDI mappings, generating XML) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'configure_drum_controls' or 'generate_drum_groups' by focusing on mic routing specifically.

  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 'configure_drum_controls' or 'generate_drum_groups'. It lists what the tool does but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• configure_round_robinA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes what the tool does: validation steps (checking file existence, sequence positions), error handling specifics, and success response content. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It uses clear sections (Error Handling, Success Response) with bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value: the opening statement defines purpose, bullet points explain validation steps, and response details clarify outcomes. No redundant information is present.

  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 complexity (4 parameters, validation logic, no output schema), the description provides substantial context. It covers what the tool does, validation rules, error cases, and success response format. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on side effects or performance considerations, though it's largely complete for practical use.

  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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. While the schema has 75% description coverage, the tool description clarifies parameter relationships: directory is the base for sample paths, mode must be one of four specific values, length defines sequence bounds, and samples require path and seqPosition. It explains that seqPosition must be unique and sequential (1 to length), which isn't fully captured in the schema descriptions.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Configure round robin sample playback for a set of samples.' It specifies the exact action (configure), resource (round robin sample playback), and scope (set of samples). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_wav_samples or generate_drum_groups, which have different functions.

  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 explain scenarios where configure_round_robin is appropriate compared to other configuration tools like configure_drum_controls or configure_mic_routing. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• analyze_wav_samplesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes what the tool does: checks for specific issues (e.g., non-standard headers, metadata inconsistencies), handles errors with detailed reports, and returns success responses with analysis details. It also specifies the requirement for absolute paths, adding operational context. However, it lacks information on potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps.

  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 well-structured with sections (e.g., 'This tool checks for:', 'Error Handling:', 'Success Response:', 'IMPORTANT:'), making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating path guidance in the description and schema), and the bullet points could be more concise without losing clarity.

  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 (analyzing WAV files for issues), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, checks, error handling, success response, and path requirements. However, it does not detail the format of the analysis output (e.g., structure of returned data), which is a minor gap since there's no output schema to compensate.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'paths' parameter as an array of absolute paths. The description reinforces this with an 'IMPORTANT' note about using absolute paths and provides an example, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Analyze WAV files to detect common issues in drum kit samples.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('WAV files'), and scope ('drum kit samples'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like configure_drum_controls or generate_drum_groups, which focus on configuration and generation rather than analysis.

  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: for analyzing WAV files to detect issues in drum kit samples. It includes an 'IMPORTANT' note about using absolute paths, which adds practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as whether to use this for general audio files vs. drum-specific samples.

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

• generate_drum_groupsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits: it explains error handling (validates paths, MIDI notes, velocity layers), best practices (absolute paths, grouping samples), and success response details. It doesn't mention performance characteristics like rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most operational behavior thoroughly.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (configuration types, best practices, error handling, examples, success response) and every sentence adds value. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 0% schema coverage. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though some details could be more condensed.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the complexity (2 nested parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides complete context: it explains what the tool does, how to use it, what inputs mean, what errors to expect, and what the output contains. The examples and success response details compensate for the lack of output schema.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage and 2 complex nested parameters, the description compensates fully by explaining both configuration types in detail, providing comprehensive examples, and clarifying the meaning of key fields like velocityLayers, drumPieces, samples, muting, and advanced features. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema structure.

  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 ('Generate DecentSampler <groups> XML for drum kits') with the exact output format and target resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on XML generation rather than analysis or configuration tasks like 'analyze_wav_samples' or 'configure_drum_controls'.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each configuration type (BasicDrumKitConfig vs AdvancedDrumKitConfig), including specific scenarios and recommendations. It mentions integration with sibling tools ('configure_drum_controls, configure_mic_routing, etc.') and clearly states when to use advanced features versus basic ones.

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