Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• edit_doc_contentsC
  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. It implies mutation but does not disclose whether replacement targets one occurrence or all occurrences, what happens if old_str is not found, or whether the edit is reversible.

  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 short sentence with no redundancy. The passive phrase 'Can be used to' is unnecessary filler, but the overall length is appropriate.

  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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and parameter schema cover the basic operation. It is complete enough for a straightforward edit, though it omits replacement behavior details.

  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 each parameter has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description states the verb 'edit' and the resource 'contents of a doc', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_doc_contents, create_doc, delete_doc, and allow_path. However, it does not explicitly mention that edits are performed by replacing old_str with new_str.

  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 the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions such as the document needing to exist or old_str needing to be present. Usage is only implied by the verb 'edit'.

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

• create_docB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention whether the tool overwrites an existing document, whether permissions from allow_path are required, or any other behavioral consequences of creating a document.

  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 directly states the tool's function. There is no unnecessary detail or clutter, 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?

  The tool is simple and parameter schema is complete, but the description omits important contextual behavior such as handling existing doc_ids or interaction with allow_path. This is enough for basic usage but not fully complete for edge cases.

  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 provides full coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is already documented in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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), the resource (document), and the scope (new), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_doc_contents and delete_doc. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unmistakable.

  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, such as using edit_doc_contents for existing documents or what happens if the doc_id already exists. The description only states the basic action without usage conditions.

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

• allow_pathA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses session-scoped access but does not mention potential security implications, revocation, or success/failure conditions. No annotations to supplement.

  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?

  Single sentence, clear and direct, no redundant wording.

  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?

  Simple tool but context of when to use relative to siblings is missing. Does not state that this is likely needed before read/edit operations.

  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?

  Description of tool adds no extra meaning to the path parameter beyond the schema's own description. Coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.

  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?

  Clearly states the action (grant) and the object (access to an absolute file path) with session scope. Distinct from sibling doc-manipulation tools.

  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?

  Does not explicitly mention when to use or alternatives. Implied that it's a prerequisite for accessing files, but no direct guidance.

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

• read_doc_contentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a read operation, which is inherently non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or that no additional permissions are required. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more explicit about 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise and directly states the purpose in one sentence without redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

  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?

  For a simple read operation, the description fully explains the return value (contents as a string) and the required input (doc_id). No additional context is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

  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 only parameter, doc_id, is described as 'ID of the document we want to read', providing sufficient clarity. However, the description adds no further details beyond the schema, and the coverage is 100%, so a 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 clearly states the tool's function: to read and return the contents of a document as a string. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_doc, edit_doc_contents, and delete_doc, which imply write operations.

  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 when a read operation is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others. The sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

• delete_docA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Delete a document' without detailing side effects like permanence or confirmations. It implies destruction but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

  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 with no unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  For a simple delete operation with no output schema, the description is adequate. It identifies the action and the parameter, and no additional context is needed for the caller.

  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 includes a description for 'doc_id' ('ID of the document to delete'), covering the parameter fully. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%.

  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 'Delete' and the resource 'document', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, read, and edit.

  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?

  While no explicit conditions or alternatives are mentioned, the delete operation is self-explanatory and distinct from siblings, making usage clear without further guidance.

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