Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ktalk_get_recordingA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling for missing recordings, or authentication requirements. Only output format options are mentioned.

  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?

  Extremely concise with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers parameters and purpose. However, it could briefly indicate what type of details are returned to set expectations beyond the output schema.

  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 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: recording_key as 'Recording key/identifier' and format with explicit options 'raw' (JSON) or 'markdown'. This compensates well, though the format semantics could be more detailed.

  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 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific KTalk recording', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ktalk_list_recordings (listing) and ktalk_get_transcript (transcript).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as ktalk_get_summary or ktalk_get_transcript. The description does not provide context on preconditions or relative utility.

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

• ktalk_get_summaryA
  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 bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool retrieves a summary, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid recording_key), prerequisites, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient detail.

  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 two sentences with a short argument list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists parameters. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is optimal for quick parsing.

  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 tool's simplicity (2 params, required 1) and the existence of an output schema (reducing need for return value description), the description covers the essentials. However, it does not mention error cases or preconditions (e.g., recording must exist). It is nearly complete for a straightforward get operation, but a small gap remains.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains recording_key as 'Recording key/identifier (required)' and format as 'Output format — raw (JSON) or markdown (structured summary)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This enables correct parameter usage, especially the format enumeration.

  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 'Get full summary of a KTalk recording' and specifies the components (short summary, protocol, transcription). It uses specific verbs and resources, and the inclusion of 'full summary' distinguishes it from siblings like ktalk_get_transcript (only transcript) and ktalk_get_summary_by_type (potentially a different kind of summary).

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or specify scenarios where this is preferred over ktalk_get_transcript, ktalk_get_recording, or ktalk_get_summary_by_type. The purpose is clear, but the lack of usage notes limits the agent's ability to choose correctly without trial and error.

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

• ktalk_list_recordingsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the listing operation and parameters but fails to mention if the operation is read-only, the absence of side effects, or any rate limits or access restrictions. The pagination mechanism is hinted but not explained.

  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 well-structured with explanatory bullet points for each parameter. It is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy in the parameter list could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

  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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's straightforward nature (listing with pagination), the description covers the core functionality. It explains all input parameters sufficiently. A brief note on output content would improve completeness but is not critical.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining every parameter in detail, including formats (ISO 8601 for dates), default values, allowed sort orders, and the purpose of each parameter. This adds essential meaning beyond 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List available KTalk conference recordings.' This directly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like ktalk_get_recording, which retrieves a single recording.

  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 list of parameters but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ktalk_get_recording. It implies usage for browsing without stating prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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

• ktalk_get_summary_by_typeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses output formats ('raw' or 'markdown') and parameter details, but lacks information on idempotency, error handling, or 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise and structured with an Args section, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the purpose and then details parameters. No unnecessary sentences.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and output formats, which is sufficient for a simple getter tool.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying the allowed values for summary_type ('shortSummary' or 'protocol') and format ('raw' or 'markdown'). The recording_key is described only as 'identifier,' so some param details are missing.

  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 'Get a specific type of summary for a KTalk recording,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ktalk_get_summary and ktalk_get_transcript by focusing on summary by type.

  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 the tool is for getting a specific summary type ('shortSummary' or 'protocol'), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs ktalk_get_summary or other siblings. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• ktalk_get_transcriptA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It details chunking behavior (auto vs specific chunk, utterance boundaries) and format options. It does not mention safety or error handling, but the output schema covers return value expectations.

  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 structured as a docstring with parameter list. It is informative but slightly verbose. All sentences add value, though some could be tightened.

  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?

  With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects (chunking, format). The output schema reduces need to describe return values. However, it lacks details on error states or prerequisite recording existence.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: recording_key (required), format (raw vs markdown), chunk (auto mode and paging), and chunk_size (soft limit with utterance boundary splitting). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 'Get transcript of a KTalk recording (speech-to-text by speakers)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ktalk_get_summary and ktalk_list_recordings by focusing on transcript 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names (e.g., summary, list) imply distinct use cases. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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