Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: auto-quoting special characters, German character expansion, automatic query relaxation, and structured queries not being relaxed. It also mentions a note explaining relaxed searches.

  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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose and detailed syntax info. It is reasonably concise, though some sections (like auto-relaxation) could be slightly more condensed without losing clarity.

  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 complexity of FTS5 search with special syntax and auto-relaxation, the description covers all necessary aspects. Output schema exists (described in return format), and no additional info is needed for the tool's 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning for both parameters: 'query' is the search string, 'limit' is max results with default 10 and range 1-50. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases or behavior beyond basic 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's purpose: 'Search indexed PDFs using FTS5 full-text search.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (indexed PDFs), and is distinct from sibling tools like read_page, read_page_image, and stats.

  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 (to search text in PDFs) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling differentiation is implicit 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.

• statsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, aligning with the lack of annotations. While no additional behavioral traits are disclosed, nothing is hidden; the tool is straightforward.

  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 includes all necessary information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Show' and key object.

  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 no parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns without needing to document return values.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the description correctly avoids parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no confusion.

  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: showing PDF search index statistics with specific metrics (file count, page count, DB size, renderer). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like read_page and search.

  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 purpose is clear and the sibling context implies when to use (for aggregate stats vs. individual pages). However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.

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

• read_pageA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full extracted text and notes when output may be garbled, advising an alternative. Does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

  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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, usage guidelines, parameter details, and return value. Each sentence is informative and concise, with no redundant or wasted words.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description states 'Returns: Full extracted text of the page,' which is sufficient. It also covers practical context (when to use image version, subfolder handling). The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds detailed meaning: filename must be exact from search results, page is 1-based, subfolder is required when duplicates exist and empty string means root. This fully clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema types.

  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 states 'Read the full text of a specific page from an indexed PDF,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_page_image (renders as PNG) and search (used before reading).

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use after search() to read the complete page content around a match' and 'If the result contains garbled text... use read_page_image() instead — it renders the page as a PNG.' Also explains when subfolder parameter is required, providing clear use vs. non-use conditions.

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

• read_page_imageA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description fully carries transparency. It discloses return behavior for both stdio and HTTP transports, error handling, DPI auto-scaling when region is set, and the crop advisory line appended to full-page renders.

  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 well-structured with sections (purpose, workflow, args, returns) and front-loaded with key info. Though lengthy, every sentence adds value; minor redundancy could be trimmed.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, description fully covers return types for both transports, error messages, and the crop advisory. It addresses all edge cases: DPI auto-scaling, region usage, subfolder handling, and duplicate filenames.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description explains each parameter in detail: filename source, 1-based page, DPI range and default with behavior when region is set, region format and example, subfolder usage. Adds constraints and usage tips beyond 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 renders a PDF page or cropped region as PNG for visual inspection, and explicitly distinguishes it from read_page() for cases where text extraction misses formulas, diagrams, or tables.

  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 a detailed workflow: first render full page to orient, then crop for reading values. It warns against raising DPI, explains when cropping is mandatory, and addresses duplicate filenames with subfolder. It directly recommends using this tool instead of read_page() for specific contexts.

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