Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• parse_document_by_pathA
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses 'NiuTrans Document Api' and requires absolute paths, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with unsupported files, leaving significant gaps.

  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 appropriately sized with four sentences that each add value: purpose statement, usage priority, parameter guidance, and API mention. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the last sentence about the API feels slightly disconnected, preventing a perfect score.

  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 has an output schema (which handles return values), a simple parameter structure, and no annotations, the description does a reasonably complete job. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and parameter constraints. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error conditions or performance characteristics, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive description.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing 'absolute path, not a relative path' and mentioning the supported formats, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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.

  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: converting specific file formats (PDF, Word, Excel, PPT) to Markdown format. It specifies the exact action ('convert') and resources (file types), making it unambiguous. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, so this is maximally clear.

  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 provides explicit guidance: 'This is the optimal tool for reading such office files and should be prioritized for use.' It tells the agent when to use this tool (for reading office files) and gives a priority recommendation. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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