Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_markdownB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using python-docx and optional template styling, but fails to explain overwriting behavior, output return values, failure modes, or dependencies for PDF conversion. This is a notable gap.

  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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first line. However, the second paragraph partially restates the first sentence ('This tool converts markdown files to professional documents'), introducing minor redundancy.

  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 conversion tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description provides a basic overview but omits important context such as output file naming (e.g., extension handling), error cases, and PDF conversion details. An output schema may exist, but the description alone is not fully 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?

  The schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as hinting at output format and template purpose, but does not significantly enhance parameter 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 'Convert markdown to Word/PDF' which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the optional .dotx template, distinguishing this tool from the batch variant and list_supported_formats.

  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 single-file conversion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus convert_markdown_batch. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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

• convert_markdown_batchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It explains output naming ('Output files are named after input files and placed in the specified directory') and shared settings, but it does not address potential side effects like overwriting existing files, error handling, or whether input files are modified. This adds some context but leaves gaps.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information—batch conversion, shared settings, and output naming—with no fluff or redundancy.

  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?

  The description covers the main batch behavior, output naming, and shared settings, which is sufficient for a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema. It could be improved by mentioning whether files are processed sequentially and how errors are handled, but the core is 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description mentions 'same template and format settings' which loosely ties to template_path and output_format, but it does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 purpose: 'Batch convert multiple markdown files to Word/PDF.' It specifies the action, resource, and scope, and the 'batch' / 'multiple' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling tool convert_markdown for single files.

  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 rather than explicitly stated. The description says 'Batch convert multiple markdown files' and mentions shared template/format settings, which suggests when to use it, but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of convert_markdown for multiple files' or define when not to use it.

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

• list_supported_formatsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It explicitly states that the tool returns information about formats and features, implying a read-only query behavior. However, it does not describe the structure of the return data or any potential limitations (e.g., whether the list is exhaustive or dependent on the environment). The stated behavior is simple but adequate for a format-listing tool.

  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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence ('Returns: Information about supported formats and features') is largely redundant with the first sentence, which slightly reduces its efficiency, but overall it remains appropriately concise for a simple tool.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states the tool lists formats and features and returns information about them. It does not explain when to use it, but for a discovery tool with an output schema, this is largely complete.

  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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to cover. The description correctly does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 since no compensation is needed.

  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 resource ('all supported input/output formats and features'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling conversion tools by identifying itself as a capabilities/discovery tool rather than a conversion operation.

  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 the tool should be used when one needs to know which formats and features are supported, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling conversion tools. The 'List all' phrasing gives some context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are stated.

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