Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_audioA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently details Lite tier limitations, return structure, and example output. However, it does not disclose prerequisites like file size limits or authentication requirements.

  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 Args, Returns, and Example sections, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

  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 complexity, the description covers inputs, outputs, and limitations comprehensively. It details the return dictionary structure and tier-specific behavior, making it complete enough for effective use.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains audio_path expects WAV format, text is optional transcription. This compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

  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 tool analyzes audio for emotion and basic features, with specific verb 'analyze' and resource 'audio'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on emotion and basic features, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like detect_sarcasm or full_analysis.

  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 provides moderate guidance by explaining when to provide the 'text' parameter (for Lite tier without ASR), but does not specify when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like full_analysis or assess_urgency.

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

• assess_urgencyA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the analysis and return values but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description is functional but lacks deeper behavioral context.

  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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes a structured docstring with parameter details and an example. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

  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 presence of an output schema (inferred), the description covers inputs and outputs well, including an example. However, it does not discuss how this tool relates to sibling tools, which would enhance completeness.

  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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining audio_path as a WAV file path and text as an optional transcription. This adds meaningful context beyond the basic type information 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 that the tool assesses urgency from audio based on prosodic features, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_audio or detect_sarcasm through the specific focus on urgency and prosodic analysis.

  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 urgency assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_audio or full_analysis, nor does it provide conditions for 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.

• detect_sarcasmA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detection mechanism (mismatch between text sentiment and audio emotion) and the return structure in detail. It also notes a requirement variance for Lite tier, which is helpful behavioral context.

  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 moderately concise but includes a full docstring-style Args/Returns section. Some repetition occurs (e.g., 'detect sarcasm' twice). The structure is clear but could be trimmed without losing meaning.

  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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and the description includes an example output. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, and a usage note. For a specialized tool, this is fairly complete, though it could better differentiate from siblings.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that audio_path is a path to a WAV file and text is transcription text, recommended for Lite tier. This adds format and usage information beyond the schema's type definitions.

  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 'Detect sarcasm by comparing text sentiment with audio emotion.' This provides a specific verb (detect) and resource (sarcasm), and the unique approach (comparison) distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_audio and full_analysis.

  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 mentions that for Lite tier, the 'text' parameter is recommended for accurate detection, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools from the sibling list.

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

• full_analysisA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure, Lite tier limitations, and that transcription is not available in the Lite tier. It does not mention side effects, but as an analysis tool this is acceptable.

  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 includes structured Args, Returns, and an Example. While it is somewhat lengthy, every section adds value. It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

  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?

  The description provides a comprehensive overview covering input parameters with formats, a detailed return structure, a concrete example, and limitations. This fully informs the agent of the tool's capabilities and output shape.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: 'audio_path: Path to the audio file (WAV format supported)' and 'text: Optional transcription text (recommended for complete analysis)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 explicitly states it performs 'complete analysis including emotion, urgency, and sarcasm'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on individual aspects like 'analyze_audio', 'assess_urgency', and 'detect_sarcasm'.

  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 indicates that this tool is for comprehensive analysis and that providing text is recommended. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual sibling tools, nor does it mention scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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

• health_checkA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns health status, version, tier, and capabilities, implying a non-destructive read operation. No behavioral traits like side effects or authorization requirements are mentioned, but the simple nature of a health check makes this acceptable.

  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-line purpose summary, a brief usage sentence, and a clear list of return fields with an example. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids readability.

  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 zero parameters and a detailed output description (including an example dictionary), the tool is fully specified. The description covers purpose, usage, and return schema, making it self-contained.

  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 no parameters (schema_coverage 100%). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing the return structure, which compensates for the absence of parameter information.

  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 checks server health status and lists the returned fields (status, version, tier, capabilities). It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('server health'), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like analyze_audio or detect_sarcasm.

  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 says the tool can be used to verify that the server is running and functioning correctly, providing clear context. It does not exclude specific scenarios, but for a health check tool, this is adequate.

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