Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_youtube_transcriptB
  3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does not disclose expected output format, limitations (e.g., language availability, video accessibility), or whether the tool returns plain text, timestamps, or a structured object. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the tool name implies.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the primary purpose, earning a high score for 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?

  The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the transcript output looks like, how language is handled, or any edge cases, leaving meaningful gaps for an 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% (both videoId and language have descriptions), so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' and a clear resource ('transcript from a YouTube video'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like search_youtube, fetchExistingVideoSummary, and storeVideoSummary. There is no ambiguity about 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, no prerequisites, and no examples. It merely states the action without contextualizing scenarios (e.g., when a user needs transcript text vs. a summary).

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

• search_youtubeB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose whether this operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns certain data. It only mentions the API name, giving no behavioral transparency beyond what is obvious from the tool name.

  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?

  A single, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple search 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?

  With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, result format, or operational constraints. It provides no context about pagination, sorting defaults, or how results relate to sibling tools, making it insufficiently complete.

  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?

  All seven parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, 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 clearly states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (YouTube videos) and names the underlying API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle transcripts and summaries.

  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_youtube_transcript or storeVideoSummary. There are no exclusions or contextual hints beyond the basic search function.

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

• storeVideoSummaryB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the write intent but fails to disclose key details such as whether an existing summary is overwritten, whether it upserts vs. inserts, required permissions, or what the response looks like. The ambiguous 'store or update' phrasing leaves uncertainty.

  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 sentence with no filler, immediately conveying the core function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action.

  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?

  Even though the tool is simple with two params and full schema coverage, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves the description incomplete. It does not explain upsert/overwrite behavior, return values, or error conditions, which are essential for reliable invocation.

  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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 identifies the verb ('Store or update') and resource ('video summary in database'), and the write intent distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools like fetchExistingVideoSummary and get_youtube_transcript. This makes the purpose unambiguous and specific.

  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 usage for persisting a summary, and the read/write distinction from siblings is apparent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are named for update/creation scenarios.

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

• fetchExistingVideoSummaryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description reveals no details about return values, error handling, or behavior when no summary exists. Without annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the agent has no explicit indication that this is a safe read operation, though the word 'fetch' implies it. It also does not mention prerequisites like a valid videoId or database accessibility.

  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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It earns a high score for conciseness and clarity.

  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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description gives the core purpose but omits outcome details such as whether a missing summary returns null or an error. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the return type, leaving some ambiguity in edge cases. This is adequate but not fully complete.

  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 documents the single parameter videoId as 'YouTube video ID', so the description need not elaborate. The description itself does not mention the parameter, but the schema covers it adequately; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 function: fetching an existing summary from a database. It distinguishes from siblings (get transcript, search, store) by specifying 'existing video summary' and 'database', making its purpose unmistakable.

  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 usage when a videoId is available and a previously stored summary is needed, but it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_youtube_transcript and storeVideoSummary are absent from the guidance, so the agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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