Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• egnyte_uploadA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Adds behavior beyond annotations: automatic chunked upload for large files and return values (entry/group id and checksum). But does not disclose potential side effects despite openWorldHint=true, such as overwrite behavior or error conditions.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential details (chunking, return values). No wasted words.

  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 only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., login state) and what happens on conflict or failure. Still, it meets the needs for a focused upload tool.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description enhances meaning by linking chunk_size to the auto-chunking behavior and specifying that local_path must be absolute. This adds value beyond the schema.

  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 action (upload a local file), the target (Egnyte), and contrasts with sibling tools like download, stat, login, logout. It is specific and unambiguous.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., login required), or conditions for avoidance. The description only states the function, not the context.

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

• egnyte_logoutA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the destructive action of token revocation and cache clearing, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds context beyond the annotation by specifying 'clear cached', but could further describe impact on subsequent operations.

  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?

  Single sentence with no extraneous words. Perfectly concise and upfront.

  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?

  For a simple logout with no parameters and no output schema, the description is informative enough. It could briefly mention that subsequent tool calls will require re-authentication, but not essential.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so baseline score is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

  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 'Revoke and clear' and identifies the resource 'cached Egnyte token', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like login, download, etc.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies post-login usage, there is no mention of prerequisites or counter-indications.

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

• egnyte_statA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds specific returned fields (size, checksum, ids, is_folder) and usage hint. No contradictions.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured.

  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?

  Simple tool with one param and no output schema; description covers returned fields and use case. Could mention return format but not necessary for completeness given context.

  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?

  Only one parameter egnyte_path with 100% schema coverage; description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is acceptable.

  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 'Get metadata for an Egnyte file or folder (size, checksum, ids, is_folder)' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like egnyte_download by suggesting use before downloading.

  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?

  Explicitly advises to 'Use before downloading to check size / that it is a file', providing clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but sufficient given sibling tools.

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

• egnyte_downloadA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes streaming for large files and return of local path. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds value by specifying behavior beyond annotations (streaming, large file handling). No contradictions.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Second sentence provides when-to-use context. Third sentence gives path example. No wasted words; concise and informative.

  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?

  Covers key aspects: what it downloads, how it returns, parameter usage. With no output schema, it explains return value. Minor gaps: no mention of overwrite behavior or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

  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?

  Schema coverage 100% with descriptions. Description adds context: explains path format with example, clarifies return value. Adds value beyond schema by tying parameters to usage scenario.

  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?

  Clear verb 'download' and resource 'Egnyte file's REAL binary to local disk'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns a local path, not bytes, and mentions use cases (pandas, openpyxl). Differentiated from egnyte_stat and egnyte_upload.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use: 'when you need to load a file with code' with examples. Implicitly excludes metadata operations (sibling egnyte_stat) and uploads (egnyte_upload). Lacks explicit 'do not use for' statements, but guidance is clear.

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

• egnyte_loginA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Description adds value beyond annotations (which show readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true) by explaining the explicit vs automatic sign-in behavior and browser interaction.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose, behavior, and usage context.

  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?

  No parameters exist; baseline score of 4 applies since no parameter info is needed and schema coverage is 100%.

  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 verb 'start' and the resource 'Egnyte OAuth browser sign-in', and distinguishes from sibling tools like logout or download.

  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?

  It explains when to use explicitly ('otherwise it happens automatically on the first file operation'), providing clear context for usage without explicit exclusions.

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