Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• text_to_speechB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses auto-enhancement of text with pauses and breathing, which is valuable. However, it does not mention output location, return values, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent.

  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 front-loaded with the core function, followed by auto-enhancement and preset guidance. Each sentence contributes, though the preset list partially repeats the schema's enum description.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and auto-enhancement behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling batch/preview tools and does not clarify the return value or output file handling, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 already documents all 8 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal new parameter semantics. The preset examples are duplicated in the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate since 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 it converts text to speech using ElevenLabs and saves as MP3, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling batch_text_to_speech or preview_text_enhancement, so it misses some differentiation.

  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?

  It provides preset usage guidance (natural for default, conversational for YouTube/demos, narration for tutorials, dramatic for trailers), which helps with parameter selection. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus batch_text_to_speech or preview_text_enhancement, leaving the tool-selection context implicit.

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

• get_voice_idA
  3.5/5.0
  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. It only states the lookup operation without disclosing failure behavior (e.g., if name not found), authentication requirements, or the exact return format. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotations.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic functionality, but it lacks details about the return value and error cases. Without an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the response looks like (e.g., a plain string ID), which it does not.

  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 coverage is 100% and already describes the 'name' parameter with examples. The description simply says 'by name', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Look up'), the target ('voice ID'), and the criterion ('by name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_voices, which lists voices, and text_to_speech, which synthesizes audio.

  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?

  Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a voice name and need its corresponding ID. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it compares to list_voices for browsing available voices.

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

• batch_text_to_speechA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses parallel processing and per-item configuration, but omits crucial behavior such as return format, error handling, rate limits, or where output files are stored. For a batch operation, this is a significant transparency 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?

  Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core action and parallelism; the second highlights key per-item features. Every word adds value.

  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?

  Despite a rich schema, the description is too brief for a batch tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks essential context about what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, IDs), how partial failures are handled, or any resource limitations. This makes it incomplete for reliable 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, with all nested properties described. The description adds a summary of some parameters (voice, filename, presets, auto enhancement) but does not provide deeper meaning beyond the schema. It confirms per-item variability, which the schema already conveys.

  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 tool converts multiple texts to speech in parallel, with per-item voice and filename customization. This distinguishes it from the sibling text_to_speech tool, which presumably handles a single text.

  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 phrase 'in parallel' and 'multiple texts' clearly indicates when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks direct when-not guidance.

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

• list_voicesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all available ElevenLabs voices' with no mention of return format, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. This provides minimal behavioral transparency beyond what the tool name already suggests.

  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 wasted words. It directly states the action and resource, 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?

  For a simple list operation, the description adequately covers the action, but it lacks information about the output structure (e.g., does it return an array of voice IDs and names?). Since there is no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

  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 0 parameters, which is the baseline for a score of 4. The description accurately omits parameter details because there are none, and the schema is completely covered.

  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 ('List') and a specific resource ('all available ElevenLabs voices'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_to_speech which generate audio. It precisely conveys what the tool does.

  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 that this tool should be used to retrieve the full set of voices, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Since there are no direct alternatives that list voices, the guidance is implicit, not stated.

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

• preview_text_enhancementA
  4.5/5.0
  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 disclosure. It reveals key behavioral traits: the tool performs SSML pauses and number expansion, and it does not consume API credits. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but 'preview' strongly implies the enhanced text is returned, and the simple nature of the tool mitigates this 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 two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and practical usage advice. Every word provides value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, when to use it, and why (cost savings). The context is complete for its complexity.

  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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'text', covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The tool description adds only minimal additional context ('scripts') beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline without significantly enhancing understanding.

  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 tool's purpose: it previews how text will be enhanced with SSML pauses and number expansion. This specific verb ('preview') and resource ('text enhancement') distinguish it from sibling tools like text_to_speech, which actually synthesize audio.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says 'Use this to check and tweak scripts without burning API credits,' providing a clear when-to-use and implying a cost-saving alternative to actual TTS. This makes the usage context and distinction from sibling tools evident.

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