Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• export_event_texturesC
  2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description must explain behavior. It only says 'export', but no details on file creation, overwriting, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is opaque.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to convey essential information.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot effectively use this tool.

  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 not explain any of the 8 parameters. Parameters like prefix, stages, file_type, etc. are left entirely undefined.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states it exports a texture, but 'draw' is ambiguous and does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_draw_bundle or export_mesh_stage_data. It lacks specificity about what 'draw' refers to.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The context signals mention sibling tools but the description does not provide any usage context or prerequisites.

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

• export_draw_bundleC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this tool likely creates files on disk or whether it is destructive. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, essential behavioral context is missing.

  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 sentence, concise but overly terse. It front-loads the core export targets but omits necessary context. Every word earns its place, but not enough is said to be minimally viable.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or parameter behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

  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 tool has 10 parameters. The description does not explain any parameters or their purposes, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the bare schema names.

  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 it exports VSIn, VSOut, textures, and manifest, which clearly indicates the output components. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like export_event_textures (exports only textures) and export_mesh_stage_data (exports mesh stage data) by specifying the bundle includes additional data.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on typical scenarios. The description provides no usage direction.

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

• export_mesh_stage_dataC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects, error conditions). The action 'export' is stated but without context on what is affected.

  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 very short (two sentences) but lacks necessary detail. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not cover return values, parameter meanings, or usage 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'stage' parameter (vsin/vsout) but explains no other parameters. All 8 parameters lack semantic guidance.

  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 'Export a mesh stage' with a verb+object, and mentions common stages like vsin and vsout, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_draw_bundle or export_event_textures. However, it doesn't clarify what a mesh stage is or the export format.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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

• open_captureC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, error handling, permissions, or state changes. For a tool that likely mutates state (opens a file), this is insufficient.

  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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no unnecessary information, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

  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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits what 'rdc' is, whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the path is invalid, and any prerequisites. It fails to fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 input schema provides no description for the 'filepath' parameter. The description adds minimal context by stating 'by path', implying the parameter is a file path to an rdc file. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only barely compensates.

  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 opens an 'rdc' file by path. It uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('rdc'), and the distinction from sibling tools like 'close_capture' is 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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to siblings like 'connect_to_gui_capture'.

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

• close_captureC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description does not disclose what happens when closing the capture (e.g., discarding, saving, or side effects). With no annotations, this lack of behavioral context reduces transparency.

  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 concise sentence. While efficient, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., stating the effect concisely).

  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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior. It is too minimal to be fully informative.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating the action, which is baseline adequate.

  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 action: close the current capture. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name aligns with sibling 'open_capture', providing implicit differentiation.

  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 usage context or prerequisites are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_capture' or other sibling tools.

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

• connect_to_gui_captureC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must bear full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of opening a capture but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or whether this is a read-only operation. The connotation of 'connect' versus 'open' is unclear.

  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 redundant information. It is concise and directly states the action.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the implications of connecting, such as whether a capture must be pre-loaded, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to other capture management tools.

  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?

  The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it also omits context on what the connection entails beyond opening.

  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 opens the currently loaded rdc in RenderDoc GUI, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like open_capture, which may serve a similar purpose. The verb 'open' is used, while the tool name uses 'connect', causing slight ambiguity.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_capture or close_capture. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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