Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_rectangleC
  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 mentions the default dimensions (20% of slide dimensions) and implies a creation action ('Add'), but doesn't describe what happens upon invocation (e.g., whether it returns the rectangle ID, if it modifies the slide in place, error conditions, or permission requirements). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 action ('Add a rectangle to a slide') and includes key default behavior ('with 20% of slide dimensions'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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?

  Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, dependencies (e.g., slide existence), and how it fits with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete.

  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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., defaults for height, width, x, y). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 20% default for dimensions, but doesn't provide additional context like unit explanations, coordinate systems, or interaction effects 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 action ('Add a rectangle') and the target resource ('to a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also specifies the default dimensions ('with 20% of slide dimensions'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create_slide', though the specificity of adding a rectangle to an existing slide is inherently distinct.

  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 an existing slide or presentation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_slide' or 'list_slides'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

• create_slideC
  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 states the tool creates a slide, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

  Given the complexity of a write operation (creating a slide) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, which are essential for an agent to use this tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

  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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (presentationId and insertionIndex). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 action ('Create a new slide') and resource ('in a Google Slides presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'add_rectangle' or 'list_slides', which might also involve slide manipulation, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 presentation ID), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'add_rectangle' or 'list_slides', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• get_presentation_infoC
  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 states this is a read operation ('Get information'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, what format the information comes in, or if there are any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

  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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (metadata, slide count, permissions, etc.), doesn't mention authentication requirements despite sibling tools including authentication-related tools, and provides no behavioral context. The agent would be left guessing about critical aspects of tool usage.

  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 the single 'presentationId' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain where to find presentation IDs, format requirements, or examples). 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 action ('Get information') and resource ('Google Slides presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'list_slides' or specify what type of information is retrieved (metadata, content, structure, etc.).

  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 (like needing authentication first), when this tool is appropriate versus 'list_slides' for browsing presentations, or any limitations on what presentations can be accessed.

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

• list_slidesC
  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 states the action ('List all slides') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return format, which are critical for a tool that lists slides from an external service like Google Slides. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'presentationId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is needed, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all slides in a Google Slides presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_presentation_info', which might also retrieve presentation-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'get_presentation_info' or 'create_slide'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an authenticated session or a valid presentation ID, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

• get_auth_urlB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the tool retrieves an OAuth2 URL but doesn't describe what happens after (e.g., redirect flow, token exchange), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a security-sensitive OAuth2 tool, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 an OAuth2-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned URL looks like, how to use it, or integration with the authentication flow. Given the security context and sibling 'authenticate' tool, more guidance is needed for proper agent usage.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, though it could optionally mention implicit context like user session or scopes if relevant.

  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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OAuth2 authorization URL for Google Slides access'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on URL retrieval rather than the full authentication flow. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential URL-related 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 'authenticate' or other sibling tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, sequencing, or contextual triggers for OAuth2 URL retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns.

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

• authenticateA
  4.1/5.0
  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 correctly identifies this as an authentication operation (implying it establishes credentials/session), but doesn't specify whether it returns tokens, sets cookies, persists state, or has side effects like rate limits. It adds basic context about the OAuth2 mechanism but lacks operational details.

  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 communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes only relevant technical context. Every element earns its place.

  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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, it doesn't explain what happens after authentication completes (e.g., token storage, session establishment, or error handling), which would be important for agent decision-making. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks operational details.

  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%, with the single parameter 'code' already documented in the schema as 'Authorization code from OAuth2 flow'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 specific action ('Complete OAuth2 authentication') and the mechanism ('with authorization code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_auth_url' which would provide the authorization code. It uses precise technical terminology that accurately reflects the tool's function.

  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 indicates when to use this tool: after obtaining an authorization code from an OAuth2 flow. It distinguishes from 'get_auth_url' (which would be used before this tool) and other presentation-related siblings, providing clear contextual boundaries for its application.

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