Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• upload_contentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions processing and making content searchable but lacks details about permissions, rate limits, idempotency, error conditions, or what 'processed' entails. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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 with two sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted verbiage.

  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?

  For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after upload (e.g., success indicators, returned IDs, error responses), nor does it provide behavioral context needed for safe and effective 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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('upload text content') and destination ('to the FileSearchStore for RAG indexing'), with a specific purpose ('made searchable'). It distinguishes from 'upload_file' by specifying text content rather than files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'query'.

  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 like 'upload_file' or 'query'. It mentions the tool's purpose but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusion criteria.

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

• queryB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool uses RAG for searching and provides answers with citations, which adds some behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format (beyond 'answers with citations'), which are critical for a query tool. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional detail on how it works. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, and the second explains the mechanism and output.

  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 moderate complexity (RAG-based querying), no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks completeness in areas like output details, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps for effective agent 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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'The question or query to search for in the knowledge base.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples or constraints on query format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

  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's purpose: 'Query the FileSearchStore using RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) to get answers based on uploaded documents.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('FileSearchStore'), and method ('RAG'), distinguishing it from sibling tools 'upload_content' and 'upload_file' which are for uploading rather than querying. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with hypothetical alternative query methods, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

  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 context: 'to get answers based on uploaded documents,' suggesting this tool should be used after documents are uploaded via sibling tools. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives for different query types, but the implied dependency on uploaded content offers basic context. No misleading information is present.

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

• upload_fileB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions that the file 'will be processed and made searchable,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'processed' entails (e.g., indexing time, supported file types). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a second sentence for behavioral context, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, processing behavior), error cases, and what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper invocation.

  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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

  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 specific action ('Upload a file') and the target resource ('to the FileSearchStore for RAG indexing'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'query' and 'upload_content' by specifying the file upload context for search indexing.

  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 making files searchable via RAG indexing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upload_content' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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