Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• calculate_file_hashC
  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 'calculate' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., hash string), or any performance considerations like processing time for large files. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool'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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a hash value), potential errors (e.g., file not found), or how the result might be used with sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'file_path' clearly documented as 'Path to the movie file'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as file format requirements or path syntax examples, but the schema adequately covers the parameter, meeting the baseline for high 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 'calculate' and the resource 'OpenSubtitles hash for local movie files', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_subtitle' or 'search_subtitles', which are related but distinct operations.

  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 whether it's for verifying file integrity or preparing for subtitle searches. It lacks context on prerequisites, like needing a local file, or exclusions, such as not working with remote files.

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

• download_subtitleC
  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 the default 'force_download=true' and that it downloads 'in original format', which adds some context. However, it fails to disclose critical behaviors: authentication requirements (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., file data vs. metadata). For a download tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Download subtitle content by file ID') and adds a useful detail about defaults. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the default behavior into a second sentence for clarity.

  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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication (though parameters hint at it), output format (e.g., binary file vs. text), error cases, and how parameters interact. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short.

  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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'file_id' is the primary identifier and mentions the default for 'force_download'. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'in_fps' and 'out_fps' must be used together) or provide additional semantic context, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('download') and resource ('subtitle content by file ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_file_hash' and 'search_subtitles' by focusing on downloading rather than hashing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from potential non-sibling alternatives beyond the basic action.

  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 mentions a default behavior ('force_download=true by default') but doesn't explain when to override this or when to use other tools like 'search_subtitles' first. There's no context about prerequisites or typical workflows, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

• search_subtitlesC
  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 'OpenSubtitles API' and 'comprehensive parameter support,' but fails to describe critical behaviors: authentication requirements (implied by username/password parameters), rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the nature of search results (e.g., list of subtitle entries). For a tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, 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: 'Search for subtitles using OpenSubtitles API with comprehensive parameter support.' It is front-loaded with the core action and API context, with no wasted words. Every part earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.

  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 (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, result format, and usage scenarios. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for missing behavioral and output context, making it inadequate for guiding an agent effectively in this rich environment.

  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 each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'Text search query' for 'query', 'IMDB ID for exact movie/series matching' for 'imdb_id'). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only noting 'comprehensive parameter support' without explaining parameter interactions or usage patterns. With high schema coverage, the 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for subtitles using OpenSubtitles API with comprehensive parameter support.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('subtitles'), and API source ('OpenSubtitles API'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_subtitle' or 'calculate_file_hash,' which would require mentioning that this is for searching/filtering rather than downloading or hashing.

  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 mentions 'comprehensive parameter support' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'download_subtitle' for retrieval or 'calculate_file_hash' for matching. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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