Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_task_statusA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'queries cached result', indicating idempotency and speed, but does not disclose what happens if the task is still processing or not found.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 polling tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and caching behavior, which covers essential usage context.

  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% and the schema already describes the parameter as returning from generate_image/generate_video. The description adds no new parameter-specific information, meeting baseline.

  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 'check', the resource 'status of an async task', and specifies the scope 'image generation or video generation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image and generate_video which create tasks.

  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 after submitting a task, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention polling frequency or prerequisites beyond having a task ID.

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

• describe_imageA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions reading a local file and using a vision model, but doesn't disclose potential limitations like supported formats, file size, or side effects. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

  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 two sentences totaling ~30 words, with the usage advice front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  The description lacks an output schema and does not specify the format or type of description returned. It also omits constraints like file format or access permissions. For a simple tool, it is slightly incomplete but not critically lacking.

  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 described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Since baseline is 3 for high coverage, this score 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 'Reads a local image file and describes its content', specifying the action and resource. It also includes a usage hint distinguishing it from direct reading, and the sibling tools are all generation tasks, making differentiation clear.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this when you cannot directly read a local image', providing a clear when-to-use condition. It doesn't list when not to use or alternatives, but the context and sibling tools imply it's for image description when direct access isn't available.

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

• generate_videoA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral burden. It discloses async nature and taskId return, but lacks details on write operations, auth needs, or failure modes. Adequate but minimal.

  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?

  Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Could benefit from slight structure but is efficient for a simple tool.

  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?

  Tool is simple with 2 params, no output schema. Description covers async behavior and next step, sufficient for basic usage. Lacks edge case details but adequate.

  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%, so parameters are already described. Description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'text prompt', 'Local path'), not exceeding baseline 3.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'generate', resource 'video', method 'from a text prompt (async)', and mentions async behavior with taskId return. Differentiates from siblings (generate_image, describe_image, get_task_status) by specifying video generation and async polling.

  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?

  Description indicates async operation and directs to use get_task_status for polling, providing clear context for usage. Does not explicitly exclude cases but implies appropriate usage vs. siblings.

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

• generate_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses async behavior and returns taskId, which is key for polling. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Does not mention side effects like delayed file writing, rate limits, or authorization—could be more 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with action and async note. No redundant 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?

  Covers essential: async generation, taskId for polling, and output path. No output schema, but description explains return value. Could clarify that file is saved only after task completes.

  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 descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., prompt is 'text prompt', outputPath is 'local path'). Baseline 3 for high coverage.

  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?

  Clearly states action (generate image from text prompt), async nature, and follow-up polling via get_task_status. Distinguishes from siblings (describe_image, generate_video, get_task_status).

  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?

  Implies usage context: generate then poll via get_task_status. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives like describe_image or generate_video, but the name and description provide sufficient guidance for an agent.

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