Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_booksB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation is a read-oriented search and that it returns metadata and available formats, but it does not mention whether content must be indexed first, what scope of books is searched, or any pagination or side-effect behavior. Some transparency is present, but significant behavioral context is missing.

  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, tight sentence that front-loads the action, target, mode, and return payload. There is no filler or repetition; every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

  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?

  An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated, but the description still lacks guidance for choosing between this and similar sibling tools, parameter semantics, and any prerequisites. It supports a basic invocation with defaults but is not complete enough for reliable tool selection in a context with 'search_book_content' and 'index_book_content' as siblings.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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. It only implies that 'query' is a full-text search string, and says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset' pagination behavior or defaults. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not add enough meaning to make up for the missing schema documentation.

  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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Search Calibre books by full text,' and states the output payload ('metadata plus available formats'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'search_book_content', so an agent cannot tell whether this searches across the library or within a single book's content without inferring from the names.

  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 this tool is for finding books by matching full-text content, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over 'search_book_content' or 'get_book_details', and no exclusions. The usage signal is only implied by the phrase 'by full text.'

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

• search_book_contentB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses that the operation is a read-style search over indexed content and that results are chunks, but it does not explain what happens if books aren't indexed, whether content is ranked, or how book_ids scoping behaves in edge cases.

  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?

  A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every component (verb, indexed source, chunk output, scope) 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?

  The output schema covers return shape, but with no annotations and no usage guidance or parameter semantics, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently decide when to use it or how to set k. It is a minimum-viable description at best.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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. 'Within one or more Calibre books' clarifies book_ids, but query is only implied and k is not explained at all, leaving an important parameter undocumented.

  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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('indexed text ... within one or more Calibre books'), and an output granularity ('relevant chunks'). This clearly differentiates it from search_books and index_book_content even without naming them.

  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 given about when to choose this tool over search_books or when to run index_book_content first. The phrase 'indexed text' implies a prerequisite, but the description never states it explicitly or lists alternatives.

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

• index_book_contentA
  3.5/5.0
  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 behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool will download, extract, split, and index content, but it does not disclose important side effects such as whether existing index entries are overwritten, whether duplicate indexing is handled, or whether network access or special permissions are required.

  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 with no filler. Each phrase adds meaning, and the sequence of actions is easy to scan.

  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?

  Even though an output schema exists and covers return values, the definition is incomplete for a tool with four required parameters and no annotations. It lacks parameter-level explanation, sibling differentiation, and any warning about side effects or prerequisites. An agent would struggle to know the exact meaning of format_name or what indexing does to prior indexed content.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It only loosely supports download_url via 'Download a book file' and gives no specific meaning for format_name, book_id, or title. The critical format_name parameter is entirely unexplained, including what values are accepted or how it relates to the download URL.

  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 states a clear, specific multi-step action: download a book file, extract text, split it into chunks, and index the content for semantic search. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_book_content, which would query rather than build the index, and get_book_details, which would not perform chunking or indexing.

  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 phrase 'for semantic search' implies the tool is used to prepare book content for semantic search, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools such as search_book_content as the appropriate choice for actually searching the indexed content.

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

• get_book_detailsA
  3.6/5.0
  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 describes the observable behavior—returning metadata and format links—but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or failure behavior. For an apparently read-only 'get' tool this is acceptable, though not fully transparent.

  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 well-structured sentence that conveys the action, resource, and scope with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

  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, has an output schema, and the description covers the core behavior. However, it omits guidance on how to obtain the identifier and does not connect to sibling tools like search_books. These gaps reduce completeness for an agent that needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The schema provides only a parameter named 'identifier' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'for one Calibre book,' slightly clarifying that identifier refers to a book, but it does not explain what kind of identifier to use or where it might come from. The description does not adequately compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed metadata and available format links') and scope ('one Calibre book'). This makes the purpose distinct from sibling tools like search_books, which return search results rather than details for a single known book.

  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 use case: obtaining metadata for a specific, already-identified book. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or that the identifier should likely come from search_books.

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

• list_librariesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately states a read-only listing operation, which is non-destructive, but it does not disclose potential output behaviors such as empty results, pagination, or connectivity requirements. The output schema covers return format, leaving some gaps in broader 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 one concise sentence that immediately states the verb and the target resource. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

  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 list operation with an output schema available, the description is complete. It gives the necessary context about the Calibre Content Server and leaves return-value details to the output schema. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

  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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description adequately introduces the operation without needing parameter details.

  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 ('List') and a clear resource ('libraries exposed by the configured Calibre Content Server'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like search_books or get_book_details, which have different purposes.

  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 when to use the tool: to enumerate available libraries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when this tool should be avoided. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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