Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchC
  2.9/5.0
  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 behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral detail is 'Capped,' which is ambiguous and does not explain the cap size, pagination behavior, or result format.

  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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. 'Capped' is cryptic but still brief; the main weakness is under-specification rather than wordiness.

  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?

  Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter search tool. It lacks context for path, limit, cap behavior, and how this tool should be selected over list_folder or other siblings.

  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 ext with examples and implies query semantics, but path and limit are not explained, and the 'Capped' note is not connected to the limit parameter.

  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 clearly states the tool searches Drive filenames and paths, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings list_folder or read_text, but the search-focused purpose is evident.

  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 implies when the tool should be used: when the agent needs to search Drive by filename or path. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might be more appropriate.

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

• downloadA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect (writes to a local cache) and the return semantics (local paths, not bytes), but it omits details such as caching behavior, auth requirements, force-refresh, or error handling.

  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 short sentences, with the action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: destination, side effect, and output format are each addressed without waste.

  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 a one-parameter schema and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the action, destination, and return semantics. The main gap is parameter format/examples, but the tool is simple enough that the description covers the essential context.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not clarify what the 'paths' parameter accepts – Drive paths, filenames, globs, or IDs – besides the generic implication from 'Download Drive files.' An agent cannot reliably construct correct arguments from this.

  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 – 'Download Drive files' – and adds a concrete destination ('to the local cache directory'). It also distinguishes output behavior from siblings by adding 'Returns local paths, not bytes.'

  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?

  There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_text, search, or list_folder. The verb 'Download' implies the use case, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative exclusions are given.

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

• list_folderA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-recursive behavior and the empty-path root behavior, which are useful. However, it doesn't mention whether it returns folders, files, both, or any permission/error context. The output schema exists but the description doesn't add much beyond the basic 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?

  Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key non-recursive caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the main behavioral caveats (non-recursive, empty path root). It lacks explicit guidance on output format or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return values. Given no annotations, a bit more context about what entries look like would push it higher.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that empty path means the configured root, which adds meaning to the default value. However, it doesn't describe the expected path format (e.g., relative vs absolute, separators) or what happens with invalid paths. The single parameter is simple, so the gap is moderate.

  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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('one iCloud Drive folder'), and clarifies it is not recursive. It distinguishes itself from search and read_text siblings by focusing on folder listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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 implies when to use it: to list a single folder's immediate contents, with empty path meaning the configured root. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search for broader queries, but the non-recursive note gives some usage context.

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

• read_textA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must handle transparency itself. It discloses that the tool may download a file as a side effect and that it returns extracted text, but it does not mention permissions, size limits, file modifications, or failure behavior. Useful but incomplete.

  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 front-loaded sentence conveys the main action, the conditional download side effect, and supported formats. There is no fluff or 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential invocation context: what to pass, what it operates on, what it returns, and which formats are accepted. It does not specify path syntax or edge-case behavior, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

  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 schema provides only 'path' with 0% documentation coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating path refers to a Drive file and enumerating accepted formats (pdf, docx, xlsx, txt). It does not clarify path syntax or identifiers, but it gives enough semantic context for the single parameter.

  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 phrase ('return extracted text') and identifies the resource ('Drive file') and supported formats (pdf, docx, xlsx, txt). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like download or search, so it is clear but not strongly differentiated.

  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 implies use when text extraction from a Drive file is neededhol, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, especially the nearby download tool. It states a conditional action ('if needed') without specifying the condition.

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

• statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Check' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not mention potential side effects, return format, or any error handling. It does not describe what happens if the session is not trusted or iCloud Drive is unreachable, leaving some ambiguity.

  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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is concise, with no redundant words, and the key action and targets are 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?

  The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but referenced in context). The description adequately explains what the tool checks, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. Since output schema covers return values, the description need not elaborate further.

  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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with no parameters to describe. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

  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 purpose with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resources: 'Apple ID session' and 'iCloud Drive'. It specifies the checks performed (trusted, reachable), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle listing, searching, downloading, or reading text.

  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 or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or relationship to sibling tools. The purpose implies it might be used before other operations, but this is not explicitly stated.

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