Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• anava_capture_analyzeC
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions capturing and analyzing, implying a read operation with AI processing, but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, whether the analysis is destructive or reversible, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with hardware and AI models.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Capture an image from camera and analyze it with AI') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the tool's complexity (interacting with cameras and AI), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the analysis process, potential errors, or what results to expect, leaving the agent under-informed about how to handle this tool effectively in practice.

  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, clearly documenting all four parameters (camera, channel, prompt, security_profile) and their types. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as example prompts or security profile implications, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('capture' and 'analyze') and resources ('image from camera' and 'AI'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'anava_capture_image', which likely only captures without analysis, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

  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, such as its sibling 'anava_capture_image' for capture-only scenarios or 'anava_get_events'/'anava_monitor_events' for event-related tasks. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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

• anava_get_eventsC
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get historical events' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

  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 sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'event' entails, the return format, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying time-based filtering, which is already covered by the schema's descriptions for 'start_time' and 'end_time'. Thus, it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical events from camera', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'anava_monitor_events', which might also retrieve events but potentially in real-time versus historical.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'anava_monitor_events' or other siblings. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a camera to be configured or available, and doesn't specify any exclusions or recommended scenarios.

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

• anava_monitor_eventsC
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'monitor for real-time events' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, what happens during monitoring (e.g., streaming, alerts), or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential real-time implications.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the tool's real-time monitoring nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like how events are reported, error handling, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

  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 (camera, duration, event_types). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for event_types or default behaviors, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 action ('monitor') and resource ('camera for real-time events'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'anava_capture_image' (static capture) and 'anava_get_events' (retrieval of past events) by focusing on real-time monitoring, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'real-time events' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'anava_capture_analyze' or 'anava_get_events', leaving usage context unclear.

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

• anava_capture_imageB
  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 carries full burden but only states it captures without analysis. It misses key behavioral details: whether this is a read/write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to the captured image (saved/returned), or any rate limits/errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('capture an image from camera') and adds a key constraint ('without analysis'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

  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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns an image or status. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. For a capture operation with potential system interactions, more context is needed.

  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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

  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 verb ('capture') and resource ('image from camera'), specifying that it's a capture operation without analysis. It distinguishes from sibling 'anava_capture_analyze' by explicitly stating 'without analysis', though it doesn't mention other siblings like get/monitor events.

  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 context by contrasting with 'anava_capture_analyze' through 'without analysis', suggesting this is for raw image capture. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other siblings or any prerequisites/exclusions.

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