Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_videoA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by revealing that an audio-free copy is created, the video is sent to an external provider, and visual elements remain usable evidence. This clarifies the non-destructive nature and external dependency, though it does not mention return values or processing time.

  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 concise, using just two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core function ('Creates an audio-free copy...'), and the second sentence adds relevant detail about what remains visible without any fluff or redundancy.

  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 explains the process well but omits critical information about the tool's return value and whether it runs asynchronously. Since there is no output schema, this gap affects completeness, though other aspects like annotations and schema coverage are solid.

  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 complete descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is met. The description does not add additional parameter guidance, such as when to choose media_detail 'low' versus 'default', but the schema already covers this sufficiently.

  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 what the tool does: it creates an audio-free copy of a local video and sends it to a video-analysis provider for visual research. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifically targeting local videos and emphasizing the preservation of visible UI elements.

  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 local video visual research but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of inspect_video_window or analyze_bilibili_video. It only hints at the local video context, which some differentiation, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

• analyze_bilibili_videoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it samples at most 20 root comments but presents only 3-5 representative ones, and it clarifies channel handling per mode. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

  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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place, covering resolution, metadata, comment sampling, and research modes efficiently.

  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?

  The description covers the main workflow (resolve, attach metadata, sample comments, modes) well for a read-only analysis tool. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

  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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds a bit of context about comment sampling and modes, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema fields.

  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 verb+resource: 'Resolves a public Bilibili URL' and 'attaches public metadata', which distinguishes it from generic tools like analyze_video. It also specifies scope (Bilibili) and modes (language-only, visual-only, multimodal), making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 public Bilibili videos through the URL mention, and the modes provide context for when to use each variant. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (analyze_video, inspect_video_window) or any exclusions.

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

• inspect_video_windowA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that it creates temporary clips, performs remote uploads, and cleans up afterward. It also specifies the analysis is audio-free and visual-only, adding valuable behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint.

  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 core action and includes a clean note about cleanup. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. This is 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?

  The description covers the process (extract, analyze, cleanup) and the annotations cover safety, but with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return value format. It implies an answer is provided but does not state whether it is text, a report, or something else. This is a minor gap, given the tool's purpose is fairly self-explanatory.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, but it does reinforce the time-window context (start_seconds/end_seconds) implicitly. No additional param semantics are introduced.

  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 specific function: extracting an audio-free temporary clip for a requested time window and sending it for visual-only analysis. It uses precise verbs ('extracts', 'sends') and names the resource (source-video time window), distinguishing it from whole-video analysis tools like analyze_video.

  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 establishes a clear context: this tool is for analyzing a precise time window of a video. It implies when to use it (when you have specific start/end times) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'requested source-video time window' provides clear scope, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives.

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