Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• translate_textA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses the automatic splitting behavior for long texts, which is important. However, with no annotations, the description should also cover authentication, rate limits, and error handling, which are absent. The split detail is valuable but not comprehensive.

  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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical behavioral detail. Efficient 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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key behavior (splitting). However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or prerequisites. Slightly incomplete for a simple tool, but adequate.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the character limit and splitting, but does not enhance per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (text, source, target). Adequate but not extra.

  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 translates text between languages using a specific API. It also mentions automatic splitting for long texts, which is a key detail. The tool's purpose is distinct from siblings summarize_transcript and transcribe_audio, making it unambiguous.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is clear, but the description does not provide usage context or contrast with siblings. Implied usage from the tool name and siblings, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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

• transcribe_audioA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the API used (Zoom Scribe), input formats, and that output contains speaker-separated segments when enabled. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, file size limits, or error handling. For a transcription tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 consists of two sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers key details.

  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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers input types, file formats, and output characteristics. It lacks constraints like maximum file size or URL accessibility requirements, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

  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 three parameters. The description adds limited additional meaning: it clarifies that channel_separation affects speaker-separated segments and provides examples for language codes. This is marginal improvement over the schema, so baseline 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 transcribes audio/video to text using Zoom Scribe API, specifies accepted file formats (wav, mp3, m4a, mp4) and input types (local file or https URL). It mentions output includes speaker-separated segments when channel_separation is enabled, distinguishing it from sibling tools like summarize_transcript and translate_text.

  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 transcription is a preprocessing step before summarization or translation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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

• summarize_transcriptA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses API source, input formats, and size limit, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

  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 sentences: first sentence establishes purpose and constraints, second explains task variants. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

  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 no output schema, the description does not specify return format or structure. It lists task outputs but not whether they are strings, objects, etc. Missing error conditions or handling of max size exceeded. Adequate but incomplete.

  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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining task options (e.g., 'recap gives a short recap') and clarifying text input as 'plain text / VTT / SRT', which is beyond the schema's generic type.

  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 summarizes transcripts using Zoom Summarizer API, specifies input formats and size limit, and lists task options. It differentiates from siblings transcribe_audio and translate_text by focusing on summarization.

  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 implies usage for summarizing transcripts and provides context on input formats and size limit, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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