Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• getCommentsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination via nextPageToken and sorting options, but does not mention whether top-level comments only are returned, response structure, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided, but gaps remain.

  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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds key features (sorting) and a usage note (pagination). Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It mentions nextPageToken but does not describe the comment list structure or clarify scope (top-level vs all comments). The description is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent relying solely on it.

  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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats pagination and sorting but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already provides detailed parameter 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 fetches YouTube video comments with pagination, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getTranscript (transcripts) and getCommentReplies (replies) by focusing on comments and pagination.

  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 for retrieving video comments but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for replies, use getCommentReplies'). Context is present but no direct comparison to sibling tools, so it remains at an implied level.

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

• getVideoInfoA
  3.8/5.0
  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 of disclosing behavior. It lists the return fields and mentions pagination tokens, but does not clarify that comment content is not included, nor does it address error handling, authentication, or rate limits. The description provides basic information but lacks depth.

  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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Get YouTube video metadata') and follows with specific details. No wasted words; it earns its place.

  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?

  The description adequately covers the key metadata fields and mentions pagination tokens, which is useful for a video info tool. However, it does not explain how the pagination tokens relate to sibling comment tools, nor does it mention any output structure or potential limitations. It is complete enough for simple usage but lacks some contextual depth.

  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 fully documents the sole parameter 'url' with a clear description ('YouTube video URL or video ID'), so the schema already provides the necessary semantic meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema offers, aligning with 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 retrieves YouTube video metadata and lists specific fields (title, views, publish date, channel, comment count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getTranscript, getComments, and searchYoutube, which cover different aspects.

  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 the tool is for fetching video metadata, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over getComments or getTranscript, nor does it mention exclusions like 'use getComments for actual comment text'. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

• searchYoutubeA
  3.8/5.0
  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 search covers multiple resource types and that results include thumbnails, views, and channel info. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination (despite a `pageToken` parameter), result limits, and the non-destructive nature of the operation, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Search YouTube for videos, channels, and playlists') followed by return value information. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording, making it optimally concise.

  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?

  The description provides a clear overall purpose and return information, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks contextual details about pagination, how to use the `sp` filter for duration/date, and the relationship to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, the return-field mention helps, but the tool is not fully contextualized.

  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 all six parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it does not elaborate on `gl`, `hl`, `sp`, `limit`, or `pageToken`. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with resource 'YouTube' and explicitly lists the result types ('videos, channels, and playlists') and return fields ('thumbnails, views, and channel info'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getVideoInfo and getComments, which retrieve specific resources.

  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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like getVideoInfo or getComments. The sibling names imply a search-to-detail workflow, but no explicit 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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

• getCommentRepliesA
  3.9/5.0
  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 mentions the token source but does not disclose response format, pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  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 two short sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the second sentence provides a necessary usage hint. No wasted words.

  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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify the return format or any pagination limits. It does establish the key integration step (using repliesToken from getComments), which is essential context. However, for a tool without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about what is returned.

  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 parameter schema already provides 100% coverage for pageToken with a clear description. The description adds value by linking the token to getComments response, reinforcing the meaning beyond the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('replies to a specific YouTube comment'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getComments (top-level comments) and getTranscript. The purpose is unambiguous and directly communicates the tool's function.

  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 instruction 'Use repliesToken from getComments response' provides clear context on how to use the tool, implying it should be called after getComments. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the dependency on getComments is clearly conveyed.

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

• getTranscriptA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns full text with video metadata and supports languages/timestamps, but it does not mention edge cases such as videos without captions or whether the operation is read-only.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by return and feature details. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

  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 there is no output schema, the description should more fully explain return values and error behavior. It mentions full text and video metadata but omits specific fields, failure modes, and handling of unavailable subtitles, making it minimally adequate.

  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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, only alluding to language support and optional timestamps.

  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 extracts transcript/subtitles from a YouTube video, with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like getVideoInfo and getComments.

  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 use case is clear from the description: use this when you need the transcript or subtitles of a YouTube video. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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