Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_presentationC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions 'analyze' and 'provide insights', which imply a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it modifies the file, requires specific permissions, or has limitations like file size or format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 (analyzing presentations with multiple parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like whether the tool is read-only, what insights are provided, or how results are returned. This leaves users with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

  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 doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'structure, content, and provide insights', which loosely relates to the 'analysis_type' parameter but doesn't explain the semantics of parameters like 'detailed' or 'file_path'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

  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: 'Analyze PowerPoint presentation structure, content, and provide insights.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('PowerPoint presentation'), and scope ('structure, content, and insights'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_presentation' or 'edit_presentation', which might also involve analyzing 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_presentation' or 'edit_presentation', nor does it specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing PowerPoint file. Without this context, users might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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

• create_presentationC
  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 the tool creates a presentation but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing files, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., file format, success indicators). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, 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.

  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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens upon execution (e.g., file creation, error handling), return values, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that modifies the system by creating files, more context is needed to ensure 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?

  The description mentions 'title and number of slides', which aligns with two of the four parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all parameters, including 'output_path' and 'template' with their defaults and options. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('Create a new PowerPoint presentation') and specifies the key inputs ('with specified title and number of slides'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_presentation' or 'read_presentation' beyond the creation aspect, 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 like 'edit_presentation' or 'read_presentation'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether it requires specific software or permissions, or when it's appropriate for initial creation versus modification.

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

• edit_presentationC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an edit operation but doesn't describe what 'edit' entails—whether it modifies the original file or creates a copy, what permissions are needed, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating operation types more clearly.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., file modification behavior, error cases), usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'edit' involves operations like adding slides or modifying content, which aligns with the operation enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('edit') and resource ('existing PowerPoint presentation') with specific operations ('adding slides or modifying content'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_presentation (new vs. existing) and read_presentation/analyze_presentation (edit vs. read/analyze), though it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions.

  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 like create_presentation or analyze_presentation. It mentions 'existing PowerPoint presentation' which implies it's for editing rather than creating, but offers no explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites.

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

• read_presentationB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the tool reads and extracts content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid file paths), performance expectations, or whether it modifies the original file. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('read and extract content'), making it easy to grasp quickly. Every word earns its place.

  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 (4 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address behavioral traits, usage context, or output details, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema for operational understanding.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'output_format' affects readability or why 'slide_range' is optional). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

  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 ('read and extract content') and resource ('PowerPoint presentations'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_presentation' or 'edit_presentation', which might have overlapping functionality with content extraction.

  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 like 'analyze_presentation' or 'create_presentation'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as file accessibility, or when this tool is preferred over others for content extraction tasks.

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