Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• webdav_copy_remote_itemC
  2.8/5.0
  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 copying to a 'new location' but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it preserves metadata, handles recursive directory copying, requires specific permissions, has size limitations, or what happens on failure. The 'overwrite' parameter hints at conflict behavior, but this isn't explained in the description.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic operation and front-loads the core action ('Copy a file or directory').

  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 file operation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the operation's scope (single files only? recursive directories?), error conditions, authentication requirements, or return values. The context signals indicate significant gaps that the description doesn't address.

  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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'fromPath' and 'toPath' represent (relative/absolute paths, URL formats), what 'overwrite' does exactly, or any path validation rules. The three parameters remain semantically undocumented beyond their 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 clearly states the action ('Copy') and resource ('a file or directory') with the destination context ('to a new location on a remote WebDAV server'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'move' by specifying 'copy', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file operations beyond the verb choice.

  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. It doesn't mention when to choose copy over move (webdav_move_remote_item), or how it relates to creation tools (webdav_create_remote_file/directory). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

• webdav_create_remote_directoryC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., write access), whether it overwrites existing directories, error handling (e.g., if path already exists), or side effects. 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

  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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly. More context is 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.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'path' parameter. It doesn't explain what the path represents (e.g., absolute or relative), format expectations, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 ('create') and resource ('new directory on a remote WebDAV server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'webdav_create_remote_file' (creates files) and 'webdav_get_directory_tree' (reads directories). However, it doesn't specify if it's a single directory or can create nested paths, which would make it fully specific.

  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. For example, it doesn't mention if it should be used for initial setup versus adding subdirectories, or how it differs from 'webdav_move_remote_item' for reorganizing directories. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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

• webdav_create_remote_fileC
  2.8/5.0
  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 creating a file but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the path doesn't exist (e.g., parent directories), error handling for conflicts, or the response format. The 'overwrite' parameter hints at some behavior but isn't explained in the description.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic operation, though more detail would be needed for completeness.

  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 complexity of a file creation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error scenarios, response details, or parameter usage, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

  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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'path' but doesn't explain its format or requirements. It omits 'content' entirely and provides no context for 'overwrite' (e.g., default behavior or implications). This leaves key parameters semantically unclear beyond the schema.

  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 verb 'create' and the resource 'new file on a remote WebDAV server at the specified path', which distinguishes it from siblings like webdav_create_remote_directory (creates directories) and webdav_update_remote_file (updates existing files). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'content' parameter, which is a key aspect of file creation.

  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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over webdav_update_remote_file (for updating existing files) or webdav_edit_remote_file (for modifying files), nor does it specify prerequisites like server connectivity or authentication needs.

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

• webdav_update_remote_fileC
  2.8/5.0
  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. It states the tool updates a file with new content, implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites or appends, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing file') and includes essential details ('on a remote WebDAV server with new content'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, nor does it fully explain parameters. For a WebDAV file update tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

  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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'new content' and 'path' implicitly, but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names. It doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., path syntax, content encoding), constraints, or examples. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

  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 ('Update'), resource ('an existing file on a remote WebDAV server'), and what is being updated ('with new content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'webdav_create_remote_file' by specifying 'existing file' and from 'webdav_edit_remote_file' by focusing on content replacement rather than editing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'webdav_move_remote_item' or 'webdav_delete_remote_item'), 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 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for directories), or compare to siblings like 'webdav_edit_remote_file' or 'webdav_create_remote_file'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from tool names alone, which is insufficient.

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

• webdav_delete_remote_itemC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't elaborate on critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is recursive for directories, error handling, or confirmation prompts. This leaves significant gaps 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?

  The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., recursion, safety checks), error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a tool that permanently removes data, this is inadequate.

  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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema implies (a 'path' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but since the description doesn't explain what the path represents (e.g., absolute path, relative to root) or provide examples, it doesn't fully compensate, resulting in a minimal viable score.

  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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file or directory from a remote WebDAV server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'webdav_move_remote_item' or 'webdav_update_remote_file' by specifying deletion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if deletion is permanent or reversible, or if there are prerequisites like checking existence first with 'webdav_get_file_info'. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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

• webdav_get_file_infoC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'detailed metadata' includes (e.g., size, timestamps, permissions), whether it handles errors for non-existent paths, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

  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 complexity of a WebDAV metadata tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that could involve file system interactions, more context on behavior and output is needed for 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?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'path' implicitly but doesn't explain what the path represents (e.g., absolute vs. relative, format requirements) or provide examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter details in the description reduces this to 3, as it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

  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 ('Get detailed metadata') and resource ('about a file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like webdav_get_remote_file (which retrieves file content) and webdav_list_remote_directory (which lists directory contents). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with webdav_get_directory_tree, which might also provide metadata in a tree structure.

  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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of webdav_list_directory_with_sizes for individual items or how it differs from webdav_get_directory_tree. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing read permissions, or typical use cases like checking file properties before operations.

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

• webdav_get_remote_fileC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieve content') but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., full file download, streaming). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with remote servers.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of remote file operations, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, error handling, return format, or differentiation from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic context about what 'path' represents (e.g., absolute path, URL format, encoding requirements), so it's scored lower at 3.

  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 ('Retrieve content') and resource ('from a file stored on a remote WebDAV server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'webdav_read_remote_file' or 'webdav_range_request', which likely have overlapping functionality.

  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. With multiple sibling tools for reading files (e.g., 'webdav_read_remote_file', 'webdav_range_request', 'webdav_read_multiple_files'), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval method is preferred or what distinguishes it.

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

• webdav_list_directory_with_sizesC
  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. It mentions 'sorting options and statistics', which adds some context beyond basic listing, but it fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'statistics' entails. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List files and directories with sizes') and adds key features ('sorting options, and statistics') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

  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 complexity of a listing tool with sorting and statistics, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'statistics' includes, how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

  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 50% (only 'sortBy' has a description), and the description adds value by implying that 'path' is for listing and 'sortBy' relates to 'sorting options'. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter or provide additional semantics like path format constraints or default behaviors. With moderate schema coverage, the description offers some but incomplete parameter context.

  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 verb 'List' and the resources 'files and directories with sizes', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'webdav_list_remote_directory' by emphasizing 'with sizes, sorting options, and statistics', though it could be more explicit about the differentiation. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from 'webdav_get_directory_tree' or 'webdav_search_files', which limits it to a 4 rather than a 5.

  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 'webdav_list_remote_directory' (which might list without sizes) or 'webdav_get_directory_tree' (which might provide a tree structure). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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

• webdav_move_remote_itemC
  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. While it implies a mutation operation ('Move or rename'), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., if paths don't exist), or if it's idempotent. For a tool that modifies remote data, this leaves the agent with insufficient operational context.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-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?

  Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, permissions, and how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool safely and effectively in context.

  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 description mentions 'file or directory' and implies paths are involved, but doesn't explain the parameters beyond what's inferable. With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (fromPath, toPath, overwrite), it adds minimal value over the schema. The baseline is 3 since the schema defines the parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 ('Move or rename') and resource ('a file or directory on a remote WebDAV server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'webdav_copy_remote_item' or 'webdav_update_remote_file' beyond the inherent meaning of 'move/rename' versus 'copy' or 'update'.

  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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the source and destination paths to exist, or clarify when to choose 'move' over 'copy' (e.g., for relocating versus duplicating files). With multiple sibling tools for file operations, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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

• webdav_read_multiple_filesC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when some files are inaccessible. For a batch operation on a remote file system, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about partial successes, ordering guarantees, or performance implications.

  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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and scope, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the batch reading capability.

  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 batch file reading operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format (array of contents? success/failure status per file?), error handling for partial failures, or performance considerations for simultaneous reading. Given the complexity of batch operations and lack of structured metadata, more contextual information would be valuable.

  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 description mentions 'multiple files' which aligns with the 'paths' parameter being an array, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'paths' parameter is well-described), the description doesn't enhance understanding of path formats, relative vs absolute paths, or file system constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is complete.

  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 verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of multiple files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-file read operations by specifying 'multiple files simultaneously', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'webdav_get_remote_file' or 'webdav_read_remote_file' which appear to be single-file variants.

  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. With sibling tools like 'webdav_get_remote_file' and 'webdav_read_remote_file' that appear to handle single files, there's no indication whether this tool is preferred for batch operations or has different performance characteristics. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparison context is provided.

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

• webdav_read_remote_fileC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced options' but does not explain what 'read content' entails (e.g., text/binary handling, encoding, error behavior, or authentication requirements). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a file-reading operation.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-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?

  Given the complexity of file reading with options, no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, authentication, and how the tool differs from siblings, making it incomplete 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 schema description coverage is 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), and the description adds minimal value by referencing 'head/tail' without explaining their interaction or default behaviors. It does not clarify if 'head' and 'tail' are mutually exclusive or how they work with the 'path' parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate for the partial schema coverage.

  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 ('Read content from a file') and resource ('on a remote WebDAV server'), with the enhanced options ('head/tail') providing additional specificity. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'webdav_get_remote_file' by emphasizing the head/tail functionality, though the distinction could be more explicit.

  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 'webdav_get_remote_file' or 'webdav_range_request'. It mentions enhanced options but does not specify scenarios where head/tail are preferred over other reading methods, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• webdav_search_filesC
  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. It mentions 'search' and 'exclusion support', but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts for large directories, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Search for files and directories') and includes key features ('using glob patterns with exclusion support'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., list of files, error responses), behavioral traits like read-only nature or performance considerations, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

  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, clearly documenting all three parameters (pattern, path, excludePatterns) with examples for 'pattern'. The description adds value by summarizing the tool's use of 'glob patterns with exclusion support', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's already covered. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Search for files and directories') and the method ('using glob patterns with exclusion support'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'webdav_list_directory_with_sizes' or 'webdav_get_directory_tree', which might also involve listing or retrieving file information, though the focus on search with patterns is implied.

  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, such as 'webdav_list_remote_directory' for simple listing or 'webdav_get_directory_tree' for hierarchical views. It mentions the search capability but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

• webdav_get_directory_treeB
  3.1/5.0
  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 mentions the output format (JSON structure) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, recursion depth, error handling, or performance implications. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with a filesystem.

  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 both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on path or excludePatterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recursive tree view of files and directories'), specifying it returns a JSON structure. It distinguishes from siblings like webdav_list_remote_directory by emphasizing recursion and tree structure, 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 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 is provided. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over webdav_list_remote_directory or webdav_list_directory_with_sizes, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied.

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

• webdav_list_remote_directoryB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'List'), potential authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List files and directories') and includes essential context ('at the specified path on a remote WebDAV server'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

  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 1 parameter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a simple listing tool. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral aspects, and output, which are needed for full understanding. It's adequate but with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

  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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter is a 'path' on the remote server, which clarifies beyond the schema's type and default. However, it doesn't provide details like path format constraints or examples, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories') with the scope ('at the specified path on a remote WebDAV server'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'webdav_get_directory_tree' by focusing on a single path, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'webdav_list_directory_with_sizes' which suggests a similar function with additional details.

  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 like 'webdav_get_directory_tree' (which might list recursively) or 'webdav_list_directory_with_sizes' (which includes size information). The description implies usage for listing contents at a path but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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

• webdav_edit_remote_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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'git-style diff preview' and 'intelligent edits,' but fails to clarify what 'intelligent' means, whether edits are atomic or batched, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens during concurrent access. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates core functionality without redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and key feature, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 3 parameters, low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like error handling or atomicity, and expected outcomes. The mention of 'git-style diff preview' hints at output but doesn't clarify format or scope, leaving critical gaps for agent 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 low at 33%, with only the 'dryRun' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no explicit parameter information beyond implying edits involve text replacement. It doesn't explain 'path' format, 'edits' array structure, or 'oldText'/'newText' semantics, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

  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 ('Apply intelligent edits'), target resource ('a file on a remote WebDAV server'), and unique capability ('with git-style diff preview'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like webdav_update_remote_file by emphasizing intelligent editing with preview functionality, not just basic updates.

  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 editing remote files with preview capability, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like webdav_update_remote_file or webdav_read_remote_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context mentioned.

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

• webdav_range_requestA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read') and the partial content behavior, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid ranges. It adds some context beyond the schema but is incomplete for a tool interacting with remote servers.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and behavior but lacks details on authentication, errors, or return values. For a tool with remote operations and two parameters, more context would be helpful for safe and effective use.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'range' has a description). The description adds no explicit parameter semantics, but the tool's purpose inherently clarifies that 'path' is the file location and 'range' specifies bytes. This compensates partially for the low schema coverage, though format examples are only in the 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 the verb ('Read'), resource ('a specific byte range from a file'), and context ('on a remote WebDAV server'), with the analogy to HTTP 206 Partial Content adding technical specificity. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like webdav_get_remote_file or webdav_read_remote_file by emphasizing partial content retrieval.

  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 partial file reading, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like webdav_get_remote_file (full file) or webdav_read_remote_file (full read). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the 'byte range' focus.

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