Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• paper_read_textA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior (extracting from front pages) and that classification logic is not provided. However, it omits error handling, permissions, or file existence details.

  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: first defines functionality, second explains use case. No wasted words, clearly 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?

  Despite no output schema, description mentions returned text and metadata (Title/Author). It covers the main use case (classification). Could specify return format but overall adequate for a simple extraction 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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by stating defaults (maxChars=6000, maxPages=3) and noting that title/abstract are usually in first 1-2 pages, aiding parameter tuning beyond 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?

  Description clearly states the tool extracts text and metadata from front pages of PDFs, and specifies it is used to check title/author/abstract for classification. It distinguishes from sibling tools (move, scan) which have different purposes.

  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?

  Description explicitly advises using this tool to check title/author/abstract for classification category. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools are unrelated.

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

• paper_scan_folderA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists files non-destructively and that files moved elsewhere will no longer appear, implying idempotent behavior without separate tracking. This adds useful context beyond the basic scanning functionality.

  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 sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action and follows with usage guidance and a behavioral note, achieving maximum efficiency.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage workflow, and a key behavioral trait (disappearance of moved files). No gaps exist for an AI agent to misinterpret.

  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 coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The description restates the folder concept ('지정한 폴더') but does not add extra semantic details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool scans a folder for paper PDF files, using specific verbs ('스캔합니다' - scans) and resources ('논문 PDF 파일 목록'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (paper_move, paper_read_text) by being the first step in classification/move workflow.

  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 explicitly instructs to use this tool first when finding classification/move targets ('가장 먼저 호출하세요'). It also explains that moved files disappear, eliminating the need for separate tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.

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

• paper_moveA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: auto-creates missing folders, returns error on duplicate files (no overwrite), and supports renaming via fileName. It does not mention permissions or side effects like deletion of original, but 'move' implies that. Overall, sufficient transparency.

  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, well-structured paragraph: it starts with the core purpose, then adds details on path syntax, folder creation, overwrite behavior, and the rename option. Every sentence contributes, no redundancy.

  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 tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers parameter usage, edge cases (file conflict, auto-creation), and expected behavior. It might be improved by mentioning what happens to the source file, but 'move' is clear. Overall, adequately complete.

  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%, and description adds meaningful context: category format with example ('NLP/Sentiment-Analysis'), clarification that destRoot is an absolute path, filePath is from paper_scan_folder, and behavior of fileName (optional, to avoid conflicts). This adds value beyond schema definitions.

  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 ('move paper PDF'), the resource ('classified paper PDF'), and the destination ('under destRoot and category path'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that this handles moving after classification, while paper_read_text and paper_scan_folder serve different purposes.

  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 specifies when to use the tool ('when paper classification is decided') and provides guidance on handling file conflicts (suggesting fileName to avoid overwrite errors). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state conditions when not to use it.

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