Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• raskadr_list_projectsA
  3.5/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool does not modify projects, which is a meaningful safety guarantee. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or whether it scans local storage, leaving some uncertainty about the operation's 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the action, the resource, and the safety property in a compact form, which is ideal for a zero-parameter tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only list operation, the description captures the essential elements: what it lists, where those items are located, and that it does not modify them. The exact return structure is not specified, but the verb 'List' reasonably implies a collection of projects. It could be more complete by pointing to raskadr_inspect_project for per-project details, but this is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are no parameters to document. This is a case where the schema fully covers the parameter surface, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

  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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('local CapCut desktop projects'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also adds the scope 'without modifying them,' which reinforces its read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like raskadr_inspect_project, so differentiation is left implicit.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raskadr_inspect_project or raskadr_check_compatibility. The phrase 'without modifying them' implies a safe listing operation, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion statements to help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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

• raskadr_inspect_projectA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 explicitly states 'without writing files', which signals a read-only operation and the absence of side effects. However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or prerequisites beyond having the project name, which is a minor gap for an inspection 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately states what the tool inspects and its read-only nature. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for agent consumption.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the resource, and the key safety trait. Minor omissions—such as expected return structure or behavior when the project doesn't exist—are not critical for an inspect operation, but the lack of explicit sibling differentiation slightly reduces completeness.

  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 100%—the single parameter 'project' has a clear description ('Exact project folder name returned by raskadr_list_projects'). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description specifies the verb 'Inspect' and the exact resource ('tracks, segment ids, and timing for one CapCut project'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like raskadr_list_projects (which lists projects) and raskadr_plan_edit (which likely edits). The read-only qualifier ('without writing files') further clarifies its role.

  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 this tool is used to inspect a specific project's details, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like raskadr_check_compatibility or raskadr_plan_edit. There are no 'use when' or 'instead of' statements, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between related tools.

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

• raskadr_plan_editA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the critical non-destructive trait: 'without writing to the CapCut project.' It also indicates the behavior of validating and previewing. It does not detail failure responses or return format, but the core safety-relevant behavior is clearly disclosed.

  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, focused sentence with no filler. The action and the critical non-writing guarantee are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose immediately.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has a moderately complex schema with discriminated operation types and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and safety property, but it omits the expected response shape, the relationship to raskadr_inspect_project for obtaining segment IDs, and any workflow guidance. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for confident 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?

  The description names the four operation types, which partially maps to the operations union in the schema, but it does not explain the project parameter or how operations should be structured. Schema description coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate more; it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 a specific verb ('Validate and preview') and names the exact resources it operates on ('split, trim, move, and delete operations'), while also stating that it does not write to the CapCut project. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like raskadr_health, raskadr_list_projects, and raskadr_inspect_project, none of which plan or preview edits.

  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?

  The description makes the intended usage context clear: use this tool when you need to validate or preview editing operations without applying them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to an actual edit-apply tool.

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

• raskadr_check_compatibilityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly labels the operation as read-only, a key behavioral trait that signals no mutation. It also enumerates the categories of checks performed. It does not describe failure behavior or return format, but for a read-only validation tool this is acceptable.

  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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. The read-only safety trait comes first, followed by the specific check categories and the timing constraint. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to decide when and how to invoke it. The main omission is what the result of the checks looks like (pass/fail, report), but the core calling intent is clear.

  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% and the single 'project' parameter is already well documented as an exact folder name returned by raskadr_list_projects. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

  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 a specific verb ('Run') and identifies a precise resource: read-only version, storage, editor-process, and timeline integrity checks. It clearly frames the tool as a pre-edit validation step, which distinguishes it from siblings like raskadr_health or raskadr_plan_edit without needing to inspect schemas.

  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?

  The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before any edit is planned.' This gives clear contextual timing and implicitly positions it before raskadr_plan_edit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

• raskadr_healthA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it satisfies the key concern by explicitly stating 'This tool never writes files.' It also frames the operation as a read-only check, though it does not describe output or error 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?

  Two short sentences deliver the purpose and the key safety trait with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with existing sibling names, the definition states the target resource and the no-write guarantee. It leaves the exact return shape unspecified, but 'Check whether' sufficiently implies a boolean or status result for this simple case.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

  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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('local CapCut draft store'), and the safety guarantee distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, inspect, plan, or check compatibility. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic health check rather than a project operation.

  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 phrasing implies this should be used to verify Raskadr can locate the draft store before other workflows, and 'never writes files' suggests it is safe to run. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage comparison to inference.

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