Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• quip_searchB
  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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it searches, without confirming that it is read-only, describing the return format, or noting any limitations. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves side effects and outcomes unspecified.

  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 that immediately conveys the action and object. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning a perfect conciseness score.

  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?

  The tool is simple, with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks important context such as what the results look like or any usage constraints. While the schema covers the parameters, the overall description is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected use.

  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 100%, with descriptions for both 'query' and 'count'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the search is by a query string, so it does not improve on the schema. Thus, the baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Quip documents'), and input ('query string'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quip_get_document and quip_get_user, which are retrieval operations on specific entities, whereas this is a search operation.

  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. It does not mention any exclusions or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• quip_get_folderB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does. It does not communicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid folder IDs, auth requirements, pagination, or that only immediate children are returned without recursive traversal. This leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

  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 sentence that front-loads the action and result. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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 simple one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it indicates the folder scope and the nature of the returned contents (child documents and subfolders). It slightly under-specifies whether folder metadata itself is included, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

  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 schema already provides full coverage of the folder_id parameter ('The ID of the folder to retrieve'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it remains at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Get') and the resource ('a Quip folder's contents'), then specifies the expected result ('listing its child documents and subfolders'). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like quip_get_document and quip_get_user, while the term 'child' implies immediate contents, differentiating from quip_browse_folder_tree.

  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 guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like quip_browse_folder_tree, nor any prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide. It states only the action, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

• quip_browse_folder_treeA
  3.8/5.0
  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 discloses the recursive browsing behavior and tree-shaped output, which is helpful. However, it does not mention performance implications for large hierarchies, error behavior for invalid folder IDs, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics. 'Browse' implies non-mutating, but it's not explicit.

  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 sentence that front-loads the main verb and object, followed by clarifying details about the output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers the purpose, the recursive nature, and the tree output format. It does not explain edge cases, but for a browse operation with complete schema coverage, this is sufficient.

  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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage): folder_id as 'The ID of the root folder to browse' and max_depth with a default of 3. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without enriching parameter understanding.

  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 'Recursively browse a Quip folder hierarchy' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions the output as an 'indented tree'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quip_get_folder, quip_get_document, and quip_search, which focus on retrieving individual items.

  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 recursive and tree-oriented wording implies usage when you need to explore the full hierarchy rather than fetch a single item, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

• quip_get_documentA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output is markdown, but it omits other behavioral traits such as the effect of max_length (truncation), error handling for invalid thread IDs, and any authentication requirements. Although this is a read-only operation, key behaviors remain undisclosed.

  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 that includes the essential verb, resource, and output format with no wasted words. It is extremely concise and effectively structured.

  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 simple read-only retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description is adequate: it states the resource and format, and the schema covers parameter details. Without an output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the return value (content as markdown), though it does not cover edge cases or error behavior. Overall, it is complete enough for straightforward use.

  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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (thread_id and max_length), including descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 'Get a Quip document's content as markdown' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Quip document's content'), and adds the output format ('as markdown'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quip_get_user and quip_get_folder. It precisely identifies what the tool does.

  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 usage through its purpose—use when you need a Quip document's content as markdown—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No reference to sibling tools is made.

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

• quip_get_userA
  4/5.0
  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 discloses that the profile is for the current authenticated user, implying auth is required, but does not elaborate on side effects, return format specifics, or error conditions. For a simple read-only tool, this is moderate 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key return contents. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately sized and 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?

  For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the return values (name, email, folder IDs) and the authentication context. It does not mention error scenarios or additional fields, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter information. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this scores 4; the description instead focuses on return values, which 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 explicitly states 'Get the current authenticated Quip user's profile' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current authenticated Quip user's profile'). It further lists what is included (name, email, key folder IDs), distinguishing this tool from siblings that deal with folders, documents, search, and browsing.

  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 usage for retrieving the current user's profile, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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