Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• highlight_reel_toolB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without revealing potential side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations (e.g., file format constraints, processing time). This is insufficient for a tool that creates a new file.

  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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Every word is meaningful and there is no 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?

  Given that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description is not required to explain return values. It adequately covers the basic purpose and scope, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters). It could have clarified how 'theme' influences extraction or the role of 'target_duration'.

  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 that the tool extracts highlights from multiple videos to create a highlight reel, and mentions support for cross-video theme aggregation. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_content_tool' (analysis) or 'smart_clip_tool' (single clip generation).

  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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Without such context, an AI agent cannot determine if this tool is appropriate for a given task among the sibling tools.

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

• smart_clip_toolA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (auto-identify and clip) but does not detail side effects (e.g., non-destructive), required permissions, or limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 extremely concise: two short sentences with key information front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  Given the complexity (9 parameters, sibling tools) and lack of annotations, the description is minimal. It covers basic purpose but lacks context on how it differs from sibling tools like highlight_reel_tool. Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

  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 all parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, meeting the baseline expectation.

  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 identifies highlights and clips them from long videos, with examples of suitable content types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like highlight_reel_tool.

  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 provides context on when to use (voice-driven content) but lacks guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives, which would help for sibling differentiation.

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

• analyze_content_toolA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It adds that the tool does not perform editing, which is a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what exact analysis is performed.

  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?

  Description is one short sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the action. Every part is essential and there is no wasted text.

  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?

  Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description is minimal and does not specify what the structured report contains or handle input formats. Adequate but has gaps.

  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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'analysis focus' corresponding to the focus parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

  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 it analyzes video content and outputs a structured report, explicitly saying it does not perform editing. This distinguishes it from sibling editing tools like smart_clip_tool and highlight_reel_tool.

  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?

  Description says it is used for preview and decision, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The non-editing disclaimer provides some guidance.

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

• repurpose_toolA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic process but lacks details on side effects (e.g., original video unchanged), output format, or prerequisites. More behavioral context like 'does not modify original' or 'requires ffmpeg' would improve.

  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 clear Chinese sentence that front-loads the main action. No wasted words; every part is meaningful.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that an output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. No major gaps are apparent.

  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 for all parameters. The description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema (e.g., what 'informative' style entails).

  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 repurposes long videos into short videos for target platforms, specifying actions like auto-detect highlights, crop, add subtitles, adjust ratio. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'analyze_content_tool' or 'highlight_reel_tool' which are sub-steps.

  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 repurposing long videos to short form, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. It is clear enough that this is the main repurposing tool.

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

• get_edit_plan_toolA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive (generates plan, does not execute), returns a plan for human review, and requires subsequent execution via smart_clip. This gives sufficient behavioral clarity for a planning tool.

  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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, non-execution nature, and the subsequent execution step. Every clause is necessary and contributes to understanding. No wasted words.

  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?

  With 5 parameters all described in the schema and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow. It could mention the output format or that the plan is suitable for input to smart_clip, but given the output schema existence, this 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 that the tool generates an editing plan without executing it, returning the plan for human review. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'smart_clip' by indicating that after approval, smart_clip should be called for execution. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

  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 a workflow: use this tool to create a plan, then after human approval, use smart_clip to execute. This provides clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for direct execution or other analysis tasks.

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