Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• play_soundA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the critical constraint of macOS-only operation and lists three sound categories. However, it omits details like file format support, volume behavior, or whether the tool blocks or returns immediately.

  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 redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the platform constraint. Every word contributes to understanding.

  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 simple tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and platform. It could mention return behavior (e.g., no output on success) or error handling, but the current level is sufficient for most use cases.

  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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by providing example sound names for the 'system' type (Basso, Glass, Hero, Ping), which goes beyond the schema. This helps the agent decide which parameter values to use.

  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 (playing sounds on macOS) and specifies three types: system sounds, TTS, audio file. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing macOS-only compatibility and the various sound sources.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like speak_response or playback_control. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how to choose between sound types.

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

• speak_responseA
  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 full burden. It discloses use of Yandex GPT and TTS, and explains the two modes. However, it does not mention the output format (audio stream, file, or direct playback), side effects, required permissions, or behavior when both message and textToSummarize are provided (likely exclusive). The description is basic but not misleading.

  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 very concise: three sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by mode and details. No extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the output type (e.g., audio URL, base64, stream), whether the tool is synchronous, or what happens on parameter conflicts. Sibling tools hint at playback, but this tool's integration with them is unclear. The description could be enhanced to cover missing behavioral contracts.

  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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes the modes and contexts, which aligns with schema comments. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema for each parameter. The high-level overview is helpful but not additional semantic depth.

  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: 'Озвучить ответ через Yandex GPT + TTS' (voice response via GPT and TTS). It explains two main usage modes (message and textToSummarize) and three context options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health_check, playback_control, and play_sound, which are about audio system status or playback control, not generating speech from text.

  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 guidance on when to use each mode (message for user questions, textToSummarize for assistant text) and context (default for brief, coding_interview/architecture for detailed). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or compare with alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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

• playback_controlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions constraints but omits edge cases (e.g., no current playback, multiple instances, state after pause). Adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds constraints. No filler, front-loaded.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers key constraints. Lacks handling of error states, but acceptable given tool simplicity.

  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%, with enum values explained. Description repeats the action names without adding new meaning, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

  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?

  Description clearly states the action (stop/pause) and resource (current playback of Yandex Voice response). Sibling tools like play_sound and speak_response are distinct, so no 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?

  Explicitly specifies platform (macOS) and audio source (afplay/WAV) constraints, guiding when to use. Lacks explicit contrast with siblings but sufficient for differentiation.

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

• health_checkA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the tool is a read-only health check returning service status. With no annotations, it carries full burden; it is clear but lacks details on error handling or response format.

  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 efficiently convey purpose and output with no superfluous text. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

  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?

  For a simple health check with no parameters or output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns, covering all needed context.

  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?

  No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description appropriately requires no additional param info.

  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 explicitly states the tool checks connectivity of Yandex GPT and SpeechKit TTS, returning status per service. It clearly distinguishes from sibling audio tools.

  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 before using related services but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives.

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