Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• edit_videoB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions supported editing operations but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether edits are destructive (overwrite original) or create a new version, permissions required, or impact on existing data. The description is vague about 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover the core functionality and list supported options. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main verb 'Edit a video'.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (2 params, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the main operations but misses important context like return value, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., video must exist). Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for production 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?

  Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed property descriptions. The description summarizes the editing options but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. For a high-coverage schema, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

  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 it edits a video by adding clips or trimming sections, and lists specific operations like trimming start/end, extracting clips, and updating metadata. While it differentiates from siblings (get_video, list_recorded_videos) by being an edit operation, it does not explicitly distinguish from merge_videos, but the verb 'edit' implies single video modification.

  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 provides a clear purpose but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_videos. It implies usage for editing a single video, but does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites. The context hints from sibling names partially compensate, but no direct comparison.

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

• get_videoA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns details (implying a read operation), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior (e.g., if the video ID is invalid or missing). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

  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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing return fields explicitly), but for this simple case it is 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?

  Given the low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists key return fields (title, description, duration, etc.), though it could mention error handling or prerequisites. Overall, sufficient for the agent's decision-making.

  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 description for video_id is 'Unique identifier for the video', which is clear. The tool description adds that the tool returns full details but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the 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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'a specific video by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_video (modify) and merge_videos (combine), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

  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 when a video's full details are needed by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recorded_videos (to browse) or edit_video (to modify). The context from sibling names provides indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.

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

• merge_videosA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions combining videos but omits whether original files are preserved, return format, or side effects like file deletion. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

  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, front-loaded with core operation, no extraneous text. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers basic usage. However, it lacks return value description and fails to mention whether originals are unaffected, leaving context gaps.

  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?

  Input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds emphasis on ordering and minimum count, which is mildly helpful but not significantly 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?

  The description clearly states 'Combine multiple videos into one merged video,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_video and get_video, which perform different actions.

  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 requires at least 2 video IDs and notes order matters, providing concrete usage instructions. It does not discuss when not to use, but siblings are distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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

• list_recorded_videosA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions return metadata and features but lacks details on authentication, ordering, or potential 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds return fields and features. No unnecessary information.

  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 description adequately covers returned metadata and features for a list tool. Missing details like default ordering or error cases, but acceptable given 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description echoes pagination and folder filtering, but parameter descriptions already provide full semantics.

  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 retrieves a list of recorded videos from Loom, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (edit_video, get_video, merge_videos) as the listing tool.

  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 listing and filtering capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_video for single video retrieval.

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