Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_keynote_appsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure, but it only states that apps are listed and a path recommended. It does not explain whether the tool scans the Applications directory, how missing defaults are handled, or any side effects, leaving key behaviors undocumented.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('recommended explicit app path'), but it remains economical.

  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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified: return format, parameter effects, and how this relates to the export workflow. An agent can guess its basic purpose but not confidently reason about correct invocation with the available booleans.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two boolean parameters (searchApplicationsDir, includeMissingDefaults). The parameter names are only weakly self-explanatory, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('installed Keynote-like macOS apps') and adds the distinctive output ('recommended explicit app path for native export'). This distinguishes it from the export/harvest siblings, though 'Keynote-like' and 'native export' remain somewhat vague.

  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 native export' implies this tool is meant to precede export_keynote_to_pdf, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer siblings such as list_harvest_outputs. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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

• harvest_keynote_pdfC
  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, but it only describes what the tool does at a high level. It does not mention that harvest writes files to disk, requires a local pipeline, may truncate long decks, or depends on external tools like Poppler.

  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, tight sentence with no wasted words and the key outcome is front-loaded. It is concise, though perhaps too terse for a 10-parameter tool with no output schema.

  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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not enough. It names the output type but omits usage sequence, side effects, failure modes, return shape, and key behavioral caveats, leaving the agent to infer too much.

  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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 60%, so several parameters such as slug, title, sourceKind, and sourceSummaryPath have no description in either the schema or the tool description.

  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 names a specific verb ('Harvest'), a resource ('exported Keynote PDF'), and a concrete output type ('KeynoteHarvestManifest'), so the tool's main function is clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like export_keynote_to_pdf or get_harvest_manifest, so it falls 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The phrase 'exported Keynote PDF' implies this tool is meant to be used after export_keynote_to_pdf, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. Usage context is only implied, not explicitly guided.

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

• list_harvest_outputsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the primary behavior—listing known harvest output folders and indicating manifest presence—but does not explain what 'known' means, how harvestRoot/redactionMode alter results, or whether any side effects exist. The behavior is understandable but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

  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. Every clause adds meaning: the action, the target resource, and the distinguishing output detail are all present.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter semantics, no mention of how redactionMode affects the listing, no indication of the return shape beyond the presence of a manifest, and no connection to sibling tools. This is insufficient for correct invocation in unfamiliar workflows.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does nott mention either parameter. It provides no meaning for harvestRoot or for the redactionMode enum values 'display' vs 'local-debug'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

  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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource ('harvest output folders') while adding the key output detail that it reports whether each folder contains a harvest manifest. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_harvest_manifest, but the resource and stated output make the tool's role reasonably clear.

  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 choose this tool over alternatives such as get_harvest_manifest or harvest_keynote_pdf. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so the agent must infer usage largely from the tool name.

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

• export_keynote_to_pdfB
  3.3/5.0
  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 hints at macOS Keynote automation but never states that Keynote must be installed, that macOS is required, that the export writes files into the harvest root, or what happens when the .key file is missing or Keynote is unavailable. The phrase 'using macOS Keynote automation' gestures at the dependency but does not disclose requirements or failure modes.

  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, complete sentence that front-loads the purpose with zero filler. Every word carries meaning — verb, source format, target format, and mechanism in one pass.

  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?

  This is a 7-parameter automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is one sentence. It omits the macOS/Keynote prerequisite, permission requirements (automation/accessibility prompts), output location defaults, and side effects. For a tool of this complexity, the description should be substantially richer.

  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 coverage is only 43%, below the 50% threshold where the description must compensate. Four parameters (slug, title, redactionMode, keynoteAppPath) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description's 'native Keynote .key file' phrase maps weakly to keynotePath but adds nothing about the other three undocumented 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 states a specific verb (Export), resource (.key file), target format (PDF), and mechanism (macOS Keynote automation). This clearly distinguishes it from its closest sibling harvest_keynote_pdf, which implies collecting already-exported output rather than converting a native file.

  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 core use case is evident from the verb-object construction, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which sibling covers the complementary case (harvest_keynote_pdf is never named as the alternative for already-generated PDFs). Guidance is implied, not stated.

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

• get_harvest_manifestB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals read-only behavior ('Read') and default behavior ('Defaults to display-safe source metadata'). However, it does not explain what 'display-safe' means, what output the caller receives, or whether includeRawSource changes the response structure.

  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. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical usage detail. Every clause 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?

  For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'summary metadata' contains, how includeRawSource affects the result, or what 'display-safe' versus 'raw' means in practice. An agent would likely need to inspect example outputs or guess.

  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 partially explains redactionMode's purpose and default, but manifestPath is only inferable from its name and includeRawSource is not mentioned at all. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant parameter semantics 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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('summary metadata from a KeynoteHarvestManifest'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_keynote_to_pdf and list_harvest_outputs. Even without a title, the purpose is immediately understandable.

  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 gives some parameter-level guidance ('use redactionMode local-debug or raw for local paths') but says nothing about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention siblings or state exclusions, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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