Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• dooray_commentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'mention support', it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether operations require specific permissions, if deletions are permanent, rate limits, or what the output looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities, this is a significant gap.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Manage Dooray task comments') and succinctly lists key features ('get list, create, update, delete comments with mention support'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters supporting multiple CRUD operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like authentication needs. For a tool that can delete data, this leaves critical gaps for safe and effective use.

  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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'mentions' are for user IDs and actions include list/create/update/delete, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or dependencies between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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's purpose: 'Manage Dooray task comments - get list, create, update, delete comments with mention support'. It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('Dooray task comments'), and lists the specific actions available. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like dooray_tasks or dooray_search), which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task ID), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like dooray_tasks. The agent must infer usage from the action parameter alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• dooray_filesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only lists actions without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or response formats. It mentions downloading content but doesn't specify if it's read-only or has destructive potential, leaving key operational details unclear.

  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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first clause and listing key actions efficiently. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping related actions or adding brief context.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and multiple actions. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent without additional context.

  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 parameters well. The description adds minimal value by implying action types but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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's purpose as managing Dooray files and images, listing specific actions like listing task files, getting metadata, and downloading content. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on file operations rather than comments, members, tasks, etc., though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose task-based vs. drive-based actions, or how it differs from other file-related tools if any exist. It lacks context for selection among its own actions or compared to sibling tools.

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

• dooray_membersC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but doesn't explain permissions needed, rate limits, whether operations are read-only or mutating, or what happens with errors. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple action types.

  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 with a single sentence that efficiently lists the key capabilities. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 4 parameters, multiple action types, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances needed for proper tool selection and invocation.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the action types but doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides about parameter usage or constraints.

  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's purpose as managing Dooray members with specific actions (search by email/ID, get details, check project membership). It uses specific verbs and resources, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dooray_search or dooray_tasks that might also involve member operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like dooray_search that might overlap in functionality.

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

• dooray_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'search'), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key features. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured by separating criteria from logic for clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context: no output details, no behavioral disclosures (e.g., safety, limits), and minimal guidance on usage. For a versatile search tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing criteria types (e.g., workflow, assignee) and mentioning AND/OR logic, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 searches Dooray content with a specific focus on tasks and lists various criteria (workflow, assignee, tags, status, date range) and logic (AND/OR). It distinguishes from siblings like dooray_comments or dooray_files by specifying task-focused search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with dooray_tasks which might handle individual tasks rather than searches.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions search criteria but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dooray_tasks or other siblings. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied rather than clearly defined.

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

• dooray_tagsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions but doesn't describe permissions required, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities (create/add/remove), this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

  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, efficient sentence that covers the tool's scope without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could potentially be more structured for a multi-action tool, it earns its place as concise and clear.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, multiple mutation actions, and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the relationships between actions and parameters. The complexity of the tool (with create/add/remove operations) demands more contextual information than provided.

  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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions actions that align with the 'action' enum but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose as managing Dooray tags with specific actions (list, create, add/remove from tasks). It distinguishes itself from siblings like dooray_tasks or dooray_comments by focusing on tag operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential tag-related functions in other tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like dooray_tasks and dooray_search available, there's no indication of whether tag operations should be performed through this tool or integrated elsewhere. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for tool selection are mentioned.

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

• dooray_tasksC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions actions like create, update, delete which imply mutations, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on deletion. For a multi-action tool with write operations, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise - a single sentence listing all actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element earns its place in this compact format.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex multi-action tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how different actions relate to each other. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial and error.

  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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it just lists action types without explaining parameter dependencies or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose as managing Dooray tasks with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, delete, change status, assign members). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tasks rather than comments, files, members, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from dooray_search which might also involve tasks.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dooray_search for task-related queries or dooray_workflows for status management. It simply lists capabilities without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

• dooray_workflowsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions create/update/delete operations implying mutations, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether deletions are permanent, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a multi-action tool with destructive operations, this is inadequate.

  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 efficiently structured as a single sentence listing all actions. It's appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the primary purpose before listing actions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 4 parameters, multiple actions including destructive operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and response formats given the complexity and lack of structured metadata.

  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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between action and other parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 manages Dooray workflows with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, delete) and identifies the resource (workflows). It distinguishes from siblings like dooray_comments or dooray_tasks by focusing on workflows, but doesn't explicitly differentiate within the workflow management domain since there are no sibling workflow tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dooray_tasks or dooray_search. It lists actions but offers no context about prerequisites, when to choose create vs update, or how this tool fits into broader workflow management scenarios.

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