Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-highlightsC
  2.6/5.0
  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. It mentions 'get highlights' but doesn't specify what 'highlights' entail (e.g., key points, summaries, timestamps), whether this is a read-only operation, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too vague to adequately inform behavior.

  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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative.

  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 (simple retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'highlights' are, how they're formatted, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

  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 description mentions the parameter 'meetingId' implicitly ('by providing a meeting ID'), but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already indicates (a required string). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to explain what a 'meeting ID' is or where to find it, so it's scored lower.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose ('get highlights from a meeting') with a specific verb and resource, but it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-meeting-metadata' or 'get-transcript' which also retrieve meeting-related data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  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 'get-transcript' or 'get-meeting-metadata'. It only states what the tool does without indicating context, exclusions, or prerequisites for usage.

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

• list-meetingsC
  2.7/5.0
  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 filtering capability and TLDV app access, but fails to describe pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'status' filtering entails. For a 7-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality (listing with filters), and the second adds context about access. No wasted words, though the TLDV app reference could be more informative.

  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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, error conditions, or detailed parameter usage. The TLDV app reference is insufficient context. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more operational guidance.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  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 mentions filtering by 'date, status, and more' which partially maps to 'from', 'to', and possibly 'meetingType' parameters, but doesn't explain the 'query' parameter, 'onlyParticipated', pagination parameters, or the meaning of 'status' versus 'meetingType'. With 7 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('meetings'), and specifies filtering capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-highlights' or 'get-transcript' by focusing on listing meetings rather than retrieving specific content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-meeting-metadata' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 filtering by date, status, and more, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'get-meeting-metadata'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The TLDV app reference is vague and doesn't help the agent understand usage context.

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

• get-meeting-metadataC
  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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the meeting ID must be in a specific format. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational 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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the action, explaining the parameter, and describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary elaboration while covering essential information.

  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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functional coverage but lacks important contextual details. It explains what the tool does and what it returns at a high level, but doesn't address authentication, error handling, or provide examples of the metadata structure that will be returned.

  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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id'. The description adds some semantic context by stating 'The meeting ID is a unique identifier for a meeting', which provides meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format requirements, examples, or constraints, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

  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: 'Get a meeting by its ID' and specifies it returns meeting metadata including name, date, organizer, and participants. It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'return') and identifies the resource ('meeting'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-meetings' or 'get-transcript'.

  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 'list-meetings' or 'get-transcript'. It mentions the meeting ID is required but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other meeting-related tools available on the server.

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

• get-transcriptC
  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. It describes the output format (list of time-stamped messages with speaker info) but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid meeting ID), authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the transcript content. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get transcript by meeting ID') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

  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 (retrieving structured data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the output format but misses behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to aid the 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?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'meetingId' is used to retrieve a transcript, but it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., UUID), validation rules, or where to obtain the ID. This gives basic context but falls short of fully compensating for the schema's lack of 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's purpose: 'Get transcript by meeting ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (transcript). It further elaborates that the transcript contains time-stamped messages with speaker information, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-highlights' or 'get-meeting-metadata'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-meetings', which is a minor gap.

  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 'get-highlights' or 'get-meeting-metadata'. It mentions the transcript content but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to choose between sibling tools effectively.

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