Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_instructorC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'Update' implies a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

  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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful update, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('rank' and 'name') with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

  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 ('Update') and resource ('instructor information in the configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_config' or 'generate_presentation' beyond the basic verb+resource distinction, 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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context for updates, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_config' for retrieval, leaving 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.

• generate_presentationB
  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 generates a file and returns a path, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, file storage location, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool that creates files with no annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

  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 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and return, but for a file-generation tool, it should ideally mention more about behavioral aspects like overwriting or errors. It's adequate but with clear gaps.

  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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain markdown formatting or filename conventions further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Generate a PPTX presentation from markdown content.' It specifies both the verb ('Generate') and resource ('PPTX presentation'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_presentations' or 'get_template.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'update_instructor'), so it's not a perfect 5.

  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 prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_template' or 'list_presentations.' The only implied usage is from the purpose statement, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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

• get_configB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns cached/live data. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 action ('Get current presentation configuration') and adds clarifying details in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output format. For a read-only config tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

  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 schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for. The description doesn't need to add param semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

  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 resource ('current presentation configuration'), with specific details about what configuration includes ('colors, fonts, instructor info'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_template' (templates vs. current config) and 'update_instructor' (read vs. write), though not explicitly named. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

  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. The description implies it retrieves current configuration, but it doesn't specify contexts like after setup, before generation, or compared to 'get_template' for templates or 'list_presentations' for presentation lists. Usage is inferred from the purpose alone, with no explicit when/when-not statements.

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

• list_presentationsB
  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 full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, how it handles errors, or what format the list returns. It lacks context on permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

  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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values or behavior. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough context for full agent understanding without additional assumptions.

  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 already fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all generated presentations in the output folder'), providing specific scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_config' or 'get_template', which might also retrieve information.

  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 implies usage for listing presentations but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_presentation' or other siblings. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

• get_templateB
  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. It states it 'gets' a template, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a static or dynamic template, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get an example markdown template') and adds clarifying context ('showing the correct format for creating presentations'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling). Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more completeness, such as hinting at the return value, but it minimally covers the purpose.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.

  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 'example markdown template', specifying it shows 'correct format for creating presentations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_presentation' (creates presentations) and 'list_presentations' (lists existing ones), though not explicitly. However, it could be more specific about what distinguishes it from 'get_config'.

  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 when needing a template for presentation creation, suggesting it's for formatting guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_presentation' (for actual creation) or 'get_config' (for configuration). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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