Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_from_urlB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must cover behaviors fully. It mentions authenticated URLs and headers but does not specify file size limits, timeout, overwrite behavior, or error handling. Significant gaps remain.

  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 sentence covering the core action, which is concise. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers basic purpose but omits important context like supported file types, size limits, and error scenarios. Adequate but not complete.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own param descriptions; all three parameters are already documented in 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 the tool downloads a file from a public or authenticated HTTP/HTTPS URL and saves it to the workspace, distinguishing it from sibling tools like share_files and web_search.

  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 for downloading files but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The meaning is clear only in context of sibling names.

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

• web_searchA
  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 must bear full burden. It only states 'searches the live internet' but fails to disclose details like result format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool that interacts with live data.

  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 extremely concise at one sentence plus a directive, with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose.

  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 simplicity of the tool (single param, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It omits details about the scope of search (e.g., APIs used), result types, or limitations. The instruction 'Use for current events' may overly restrict usage.

  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% for the single 'query' parameter, which is well-described in the schema as 'The highly specific search query.' The description adds the emphasis 'highly specific' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

  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 it searches the live internet for up-to-date information, specifically for current events. This is distinct from sibling tools download_from_url and share_files, which have different purposes.

  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 recommends using it for current events, providing clear context. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the directive is sufficient given the tool's straightforward nature and distinct siblings.

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

• save_shared_fileA
  4/5.0
  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 behavioral traits. It only covers the encoding requirement for binary files but does not mention whether saves overwrite existing files, required permissions, workspace scope, size limits, or success/error responses. This significant gap limits 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with essential information, and every sentence contributes meaning. No redundancy or filler.

  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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and a critical encoding rule. However, it omits mention of return values, overwrite behavior, and workspace implications. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that binary files must be base64 encoded and that the encoding parameter defaults to 'base64' (implied by the mandatory base64 requirement). It also advises including file extensions in fileName. This guidance goes 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 'Saves' and specifies the resource 'file' into the workspace. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'download_from_url' by explicitly stating that it avoids needing an external URL download, making its unique purpose evident.

  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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to save generated images, PDFs, DOCX, or text files without needing an external URL download.' This contrasts with the download tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'share_files' for sharing existing files, nor does it list exclusions.

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

• share_filesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the multi-step algorithm for PDF reading, the necessity of confirmationToken for download, and that preview returns metadata. However, it does not mention potential side effects or permissions.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is verbose, especially the PDF reading algorithm (6 bullet-like points). While well-structured and front-loaded with actions, it could be more concise without losing necessary detail.

  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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all necessary usage context, including workflow constraints and edge cases for PDFs. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

  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?

  Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. For pageStart and pageEnd, it explains chunking and TOC search strategies. For confirmationToken, it clarifies dependency on preview call. The description compensates richly for any missing schema details.

  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 reads or shares workspace files with three distinct actions: read, preview, download. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like download_from_url (different source) and save_shared_file (different action).

  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 provides explicit workflow: always call 'preview' before 'download', and detailed PDF reading strategies (chunked reading, TOC search, etc.). It tells agents when to use each action and gives step-by-step instructions.

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