Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tts_system_infoC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the call is read-only, what data it returns, or any potential side effects. The agent has no context about what to expect.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified. It is not verbose, yet it lacks useful structure or key details that would make it valuable beyond the tool name.

  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?

  With no output schema and no parameter details, the description is the only source of information. It does not explain what kind of information is returned or how it relates to the operations in sibling tools, leaving a significant gap.

  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 zero parameters, so the schema defines nothing. Per rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter meaning, though it could describe what 'capabilities' means.

  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 uses the verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'text-to-speech capabilities,' but it is vague about what specific information is provided. It distinguishes from sibling tools (speak, save, list voices) by domain, but does not define the scope of 'capabilities.'

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to tts_list_voices or other siblings. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives.

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

• tts_save_audioC
  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 behavioral burden, but it only states the basic action. It fails to disclose that this writes a file to disk, any permissions or limitations, or whether it overwrites existing files—important for an AI agent to know.

  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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include more detail without losing conciseness.

  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?

  Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks essential context for an agent deciding to invoke this tool. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., confirmed file path), usage scenarios, or caveats like file overwriting. The tool is relatively complex (5 params, no output schema), and the description under-delivers.

  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 already provides descriptive text for all five parameters (e.g., 'Speaking rate in words per minute', 'Audio format: aiff, wav, mp4'), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema.

  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 function—converting text to speech and saving to a file—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tts_speak (likely playback) and tts_list_voices. However, it doesn't mention the selectable formats or voice options, which are present in the schema.

  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 its siblings (tts_speak, tts_list_voices, etc.). It doesn't specify use cases such as 'when you need a playable file' or 'for audio file archives.'

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

• tts_list_voicesA
  3.6/5.0
  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. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention output format, potential filtering effects, or other behavioral traits. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

  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, direct sentence that wastes no words. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the action and object, though it omits explicit mention of the return value. For a list operation, the return is obvious enough, so slight incompleteness is acceptable.

  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 provides 100% coverage for the 'language' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 'List all available voices on the system' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (voices), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like tts_speak (speak text) and tts_save_audio (save audio). It fully answers what the tool does.

  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 or any exclusions. It simply states the function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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

• tts_speakA
  3.6/5.0
  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 only states 'play it immediately', omitting details about potential audio output, blocking behavior, errors, or return values. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

  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, concise sentence that communicates the essential function without any wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

  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, no output schema, and a simple one-line description, the tool lacks critical context such as whether 'play' produces audible output, how the agent will know if the text is too long, or confirmation of completion. The description is minimal and leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema already states, like the default voice or rate constraints.

  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 action ('Convert text to speech') and the immediate behavior ('play it immediately'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tts_save_audio. It is specific about both the resource and the scope.

  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 implies usage for immediate playback with 'play it immediately', which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of full guidance.

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

• tts_voice_demoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Play' makes it clear this is an audio output action, and 'demo phrase' suggests a fixed default. It does not mention optional text behavior, side effects, or return values, but for a simple playback tool this is minimally sufficient.

  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, self-contained sentence that immediately conveys the core action. No wasted words and the most important qualifier ('demo phrase') is front-loaded.

  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 simple playback tool with a straightforward schema, the description is almost complete. It omits an explanation of default text behavior and whether any audio output is asynchronous, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, these gaps are minor.

  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 fully covers both parameters with clear descriptions (text defaulting to a demo phrase, voice being the voice name). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already provides 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Play') and resource ('demo phrase') with a qualifier ('with a specific voice'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like tts_speak (general text) and tts_save_audio (saving), though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies this tool is for demos or quick testing of a particular voice, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over tts_speak or provide exclusion criteria, so its usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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