Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• validate_fileC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states the action ('validate file format and convertibility') without disclosing what happens on invalid files, whether any side effects occur, or supported input constraints. This is a minimal disclosure.

  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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks any additional structure. For such a brief description, conciseness is strong.

  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?

  Despite the tool being simple (one parameter) and having an output schema, the description omits essential context such as accepted file formats, validation criteria, and error behavior. Without annotations or richer description, the tool is not adequately specified for an agent.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, and the description does not mention file_path or its expected format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving semantics under-specified.

  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 ('validate') and identifies the resource ('file format and convertibility'), which distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_markdown and markdown_to_pdf. However, it doesn't specify what 'valid' means or what formats are involved, so it's not fully precise.

  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, no prerequisites, exclusions, or example scenarios. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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

• pdf_to_markdownC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description only restates the basic conversion without disclosing behavior around image extraction, formatting preservation, error handling, or output characteristics. With no annotations, this leaves the agent uninformed about edge cases and side effects.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. While it does not waste words, it lacks structured information needed for effective tool invocation.

  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 has four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover parameter behavior, side effects, or output characteristics, making it barely adequate for an agent to understand the full context.

  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?

  The description does not mention any of the four parameters (pdf_path, output_path, extract_images, preserve_formatting) or their semantic meaning. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

  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 (convert) and the resource transformation (PDF to Markdown), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools like markdown_to_pdf and list_supported_formats.

  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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when you need Markdown from a PDF) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides the core purpose but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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

• markdown_to_pdfB
  3.3/5.0
  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 disclosing behavior. It only states the conversion action without mentioning side effects, output file handling, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or any errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates a file on the filesystem.

  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 one short sentence with zero filler words. It front-loads the core purpose without extraneous detail, making it highly concise. It is an efficient use of words, not under-specified to the point of being meaningless (unlike a single verb like 'process').

  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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain how parameters interact, what the output schema contains, or any prerequisites. For a nontrivial tool with multiple configurable options, the description is insufficient.

  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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. While parameter names like margin, font_size, and page_size are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain formats, units, or how output_path defaults to null. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 tool converts Markdown files to PDF format, using a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('Markdown file' to 'PDF format'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_to_markdown (which does the reverse) and list_supported_formats/validate_file by stating the exact conversion direction.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the conversion direction: use this when you need to turn Markdown into PDF. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer pdf_to_markdown or check supported formats first. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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

• list_supported_formatsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose ('List supported file formats and conversion options') without describing what the output looks like, whether it returns a paginated list, or if there are any side effects. Since it is a read-only list operation, the behavior is implicitly safe, but the description does not elaborate beyond the basic action.

  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, succinct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('List') and clearly states the object. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema.

  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, no parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose. The output schema will describe the return values, and the sibling tool names make it clear that this is a discovery tool. No additional context is necessary.

  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 accepts no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. The schema confirms zero parameters and 100% coverage, leaving nothing ambiguous.

  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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported file formats and conversion options'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (pdf_to_markdown, markdown_to_pdf, validate_file) by being an information/discovery tool rather than a converter or validator.

  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 its siblings. It does not mention that one might use this tool before converting to see available options, nor does it state any exclusions. There is no 'when to use' or 'use this instead of...' context.

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