Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• play_soundA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether audio playback is synchronous, permission requirements, or error handling. The output schema exists but is not described.

  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 a clear introduction and bullet-point guidelines. The example adds context. It is slightly verbose but efficiently conveys necessary information.

  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 (2 parameters, no required ones), the description covers the purpose, usage scenarios, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not discuss return values, but that is acceptable for a straightforward action.

  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 meaning to the sound_type parameter by explaining when to use each value. The custom_sound_path parameter is implied but not detailed. This compensates partially for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 'Play a notification sound on the user's device' and differentiates between sound types with specific use cases. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like install_to_user_dir and list_available_sounds.

  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?

  Provides detailed WHEN TO USE guidelines for each sound type (completion, error, notification, custom) and an example. This gives clear context for when the tool should be invoked.

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

• install_to_user_dirA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool copies default sound files to the config directory for modification, but lacks details on whether files are overwritten, directory creation, or error conditions. This provides basic but incomplete 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise, uses bullet points for clarity, and front-loads the core action in the first line. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage scenarios. It does not elaborate on return values (not required due to output schema) or side effects like overwriting, but the simplicity of the tool makes this likely sufficient.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not need to add any.

  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 primary action: 'Install sound files to user's config directory.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools list_available_sounds and play_sound, which are read and playback operations respectively.

  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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE THIS TOOL' bullets, covering customization, first-time setup, and troubleshooting. While it does not specify when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, the use cases are clear and distinct from siblings.

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

• list_available_soundsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only fetching of available sounds, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, nondestructive, or what the output format is. Since it's a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

  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 only two sentences plus a bulleted usage section. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear formatting, making it easy to parse.

  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 tool complexity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the absence of annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage. No additional details are needed.

  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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

  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 lists all available notification sounds. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'notification sounds', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'play_sound' and 'install_to_user_dir'.

  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 explicitly provides three scenarios for when to use the tool: checking available options, verifying existence of a specific sound, and before using a custom sound. This gives clear guidance without needing to mention alternatives.

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