Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• transcribeB
  3.4/5.0
  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 only mentions the model name and task, without detailing output format, supported audio formats beyond what the schema implies, or any limitations. This is minimal behavioral context.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and subject. It contains no filler, every word earns its place.

  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?

  With no annotations and no output schema, the description is expected to provide more context about return values, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. It offers none, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 provides a complete description of the single parameter (audio_base64) with format details, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 the specific verb 'transcribe' and clearly identifies the resource ('Bambara speech') and the model ('Djelia V2'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like translate and text_to_speech.

  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 transcribing Bambara audio, giving clear context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are provided, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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

• text_to_speechA
  3.5/5.0
  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 only restates the core action without detailing output format, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints. The schema provides the `format` parameter, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how it behaves.

  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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key inputs. 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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool and the well-documented schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the return value (e.g., audio data) or any caveats, and the absence of an output schema means more responsibility falls on the description to explain behavior.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond naming `text` and `description`; it does not clarify the `format` parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the existing 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 uses a specific verb ('Synthesize') and resource ('Bambara speech'), and clarifies the two main inputs (`text` and `description`). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `translate`, `transcribe`, and `list_supported_languages`.

  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 converting text to Bambara speech, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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

• translateA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the return format as a JSON object with the translated text, which is useful behavioral context. There are no annotations, but it does not cover error behavior, restrictions, or whether source and target must differ, leaving some gaps.

  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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It fronts the main action and includes only essential additional guidance about language codes and return format, with no fluff.

  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 translation tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameter roles, and return structure. It does not discuss edge cases like invalid codes or source-target equality, but the pointer to list_supported_languages helps mitigate the need for more detail.

  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 explains the role of each parameter (text, source, target) in context, but schema description coverage is 0%. It does not explain the meanings of the enum values (e.g., bam_Latn), relying on a pointer to list_supported_languages, which partially compensates for the lack of 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 action ('Translate') and operands (text, source, target language). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as transcribe and text_to_speech by specifying the exact task of language translation.

  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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (translation) and explicitly directs users to list_supported_languages for valid codes, establishing a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or explicitly compare with alternatives like transcribe.

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

• list_supported_languagesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape (list of {'code','name'}) and provides exact codes and names, which is concrete behavioral information. It omits error handling and auth, but that is acceptable for a simple read-only listing.

  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 short sentences: first states the purpose plainly, second provides return format and examples. No wasted words; fully front-loaded.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and return shape. Nothing is missing for an agent to call it correctly; the examples make the output concrete.

  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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed; the schema already shows no properties.

  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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'languages supported by Djelia translation', distinguishing it from siblings (translate, transcribe, text-to-speech) as a discovery tool. The purpose is unambiguous.

  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?

  Clear context: use this to see which language codes/names are available for translation. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are obviously different, so usage intent is clear.

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