Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• inspect_documentA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states the tool never reports an authenticity verdict, never returns recovered text because reading the payload is the attack, and flags prompt-injection carriers. It does not disclose much about side effects or resource constraints beyond what is already in the parameter schema.

  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 compact but dense; it front-loads the core purpose and uses the second paragraph for the prompt-injection 'ALSO ANSWERS' handling. The first sentence is long but each special is relevant, and nothing is flatly wasted.

  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?

  Despite the absence of an output schema, the description discloses what is returned (risk signals plus raw evidence), what is explicitly NOT returned (recovered text and verdicts), the accepted file formats, and the key usage warning about lodel context. For an AI agent deciding whether and when to invoke this tool, the description is effectively complete.

  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 already documents all four parameters and covers 100% of the parameter semantics, including the url/path exclusivity, 10 MB limit, issuer behavior, and policy thresholds. The description adds only high-level format context, not additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 has a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a document or image') followed by a concrete list of fraud and tamper signals, so an agent can understand exactly what the tool investigates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings (triage_document, check_redaction, compare_documents), so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

  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 a clear directive: call this BEFORE the document reaches the model's context, especially for prompt-injection checking. It does not explicitly state when to use the sibling tools instead, but the 'ALSO ANSWERS' section provides a strong practical entry condition.

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

• check_redactionA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses how the check works (reads paint order), what it catches (plain rectangles and unapplied redaction marks), and a key security-relevant limitation of visual redaction. It could go further by describing expected output or side effects, but as a read-oriented check, the behavior is substantially 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 only a few sentences but packs in purpose, diagnostic mechanism, a common failure scenario, and a usage reminder. Every sentence contributes, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

  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?

  The description plus the comprehensive input schema give an agent both selection and invocation information: what it does, what failure it detects, who should call it, and what parameters are needed. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value, and it does not disambiguate how this complements inspect_document or triage_document, but this is otherwise complete enough for 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%, with detailed descriptions for both url and path already included. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that a PDF is the subject of the check. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 and resource: "Check whether a PDF's redactions actually removed anything." It goes further by explaining the two distinct failure modes it catches (plain drawn rectangles and never-applied redaction marks), which clearly distinguishes it from the more generic sibling tools like inspect_document.

  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 usage context: "Use this before a document is filed or released." It also explains why that timing matters by describing the common visual-redaction failure. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state when to choose one of the other document tools instead.

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

• compare_documentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying three concrete result modes: byte identity, revision ancestry via byte-prefix matching, and field-by-field structural diff. It also adds negatives ('Renders nothing and compares no pixels'), which prevents common misconceptions. It does not mention effects, permissions, or edge cases, but this is a read-only comparison tool and the description largely covers 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence frames the purpose and value question, and the second enumerates outcomes succinctly. Every clause earns its place.

  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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the three possible result categories (byte identity, revision ancestry, structural diff). The input schema fully covers parameters. It lacks only concrete boolean/response shape details, but an agent can reasonably infer what to expect and when to invoke the tool.

  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 all four parameters well. The description adds modest context by framing one document as trusted ('the original you already hold') and the other as candidate, but it does not need to elaborate on URL/PATH mechanics because the schema already covers them. This matches the baseline for full 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 names a specific verb ('Compare'), a clear resource (candidate document against the original you hold), and the central question ('is this the same file, unchanged?'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that inspect, triage, or check redaction.

  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 clearly positions this tool as the multi-file comparison tool, saying it answers what 'a single-file check cannot.' It implies when to use it: when an original already exists and an unchanged/revision/diff verdict is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• triage_documentA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and handles it well. It discloses exactly what is read, what is returned, and what is NOT checked (hidden text, redaction failures, altered arithmetic, etc.). It also warns that a quiet triage is not a clean bill of health and explains the measured cost output.

  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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveats and scope differences are critical to correct agent behavior. It could be slightly tightened, but the length is justified by the complexity and by the need to prevent the tool from being treated as a full inspection.

  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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose, alternatives, inputs, outputs, limitations, and non-verdict framing. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry all the information an agent needs to decide whether to invoke this tool and how to interpret the result. It qualifies as common.

  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 single parameter 'path' is fully covered by the schema, which already states it is an absolute path, the acceptable file formats, and the 10 MB limit. The description adds incidental context about PDFs versus Office documents but does not add param-specific semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 for full schema coverage 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 opens with a specific action: a cheap pre-flight for document intake. It names the resource (document) and its core outcome (is it worth ingesting, what does opening cost), and differentiates itself from the sibling inspect_document by saying it avoids the expensive per-page walk. This is a precise, non-circular statement that an agent can use to decide between the tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description says exactly when to use this tool: to route or reject before a full parse, never as a verdict. It explicitly names inspect_document as the alternative for page-content analysis, and notes that PDFs get a cheap scope while Office documents and images return full reports. That is concrete routing guidance.

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