Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_pdfB
  3.2/5.0
  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 mentions authentication requirements (NCCN credentials with environment variable fallbacks) and the return value format, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, network timeouts, file size limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, which are important for a download tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be more concise. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective, but the bullet-point style might be slightly verbose for a tool with schema documentation gaps.

  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 moderate complexity (download with optional auth), no annotations, low schema coverage (0%), but presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers authentication needs and return format, but lacks details on error cases, performance characteristics, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The output schema existence reduces the need to fully document returns, but other behavioral aspects remain underspecified.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage with only one parameter ('url') documented structurally. The description adds semantic meaning for 'url' and introduces three additional parameters ('filename', 'username', 'password') not present in the schema, creating inconsistency. While it explains these parameters' purposes and defaults, the mismatch between schema and description reduces reliability, and it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the action ('Download a PDF file') and resource ('from the specified URL'), with additional context about NCCN login credentials. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_content' and 'get_index' by focusing on file retrieval rather than content processing or indexing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar download tools beyond the PDF-specific mention.

  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 downloading PDFs from URLs, particularly mentioning NCCN authentication contexts, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'extract_content' (which might handle PDF content extraction) or general file download tools. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite conditions are stated beyond the optional authentication parameters.

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

• extract_contentA
  3.6/5.0
  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 explains the extraction process and return value ('Extracted text content'), but lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or authentication needs. It does not contradict annotations, but offers only basic operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter details could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns, but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies 'pdf_path' as a path relative to downloads or absolute, and details 'pages' with examples, default behavior, and support for negative indexing. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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: 'Extract content from specific pages of a PDF file.' It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('content from PDF'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_pdf' or 'get_index', which likely serve different purposes (downloading files and indexing content).

  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 mentions that pages can be specified or all pages extracted, but does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'get_index' or 'download_pdf', nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_indexA
  4/5.0
  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 the return type (raw YAML content as a string) and that it fetches from a specific file, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or any constraints (e.g., file size limits, authentication needs). The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear return statement. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and structured for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the return value, which is sufficient since the output schema likely covers return details. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., any limitations or dependencies) to be fully comprehensive.

  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 focuses on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero parameters.

  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 specific action ('Get the raw contents') and resource ('NCCN guidelines index YAML file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_pdf and extract_content which handle different operations on different resources. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.

  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 by specifying the resource (NCCN guidelines index YAML file), suggesting it's for accessing this particular data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_content, which might process the content, or download_pdf for PDF files. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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