Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_relaxC
  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 behavioral traits. It mentions that generation time depends on account status and queuing, which gives some insight, but it does not state that the tool is non-destructive, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens to the result beyond the hook_url notification.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is short but poorly structured and contains grammatical errors ('generate the images relax Generate queue asynchronous notifications'). It is not well-written and lacks clarity, which hinders 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?

  Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context. It mentions async notification to hook_url but does not explain the response format, what 'relax' mode entails compared to siblings, or any other behavioral boundaries. The description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no other structured support.

  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 the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states 'generate the images relax' indicating a verb and resource, but the phrasing is garbled and confusing. The core purpose of generating images in relax mode is discernible, but the statement is not clear, especially with the merged words 'images relax Generate'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  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 siblings like 'generate_fast' or 'action_relaxuu0026v'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

• action_fastuu0026vC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists operation types without disclosing behavior such as mutation, idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. The 'fast' in the name implies performance but is not explained.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence but slightly repetitive ('Do the fast action' followed by 'You can perform...'). It is not excessively long but could be more concise and structured.

  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 output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description leaves gaps: no return value info, prerequisites, error handling, or explanation of the garbled tool name. It is insufficient for full autonomous 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'image_id' by clarifying its source, and for 'action' by example enumeration values, but does not fully specify the enumeration or validate constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states it performs operations like upsample, variation, zoom out, and pan on generated images, which provides a clear purpose. However, the tool name is garbled and the description is slightly repetitive, lacking differentiation from sibling actions.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like action_relaxuu0026v or generate tools. The description only mentions it applies to images from the first step, but does not specify conditions or exclusions.

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

• action_relaxuu0026vC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists operations but fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether actions are destructive), prerequisites (e.g., image must exist), or constraints (e.g., action values come from callback). Vague 'other operations' adds uncertainty.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Short description but the opening line is redundant. The bullet-like list is somewhat structured, but not optimally concise. Every sentence earns its place, though the first could be refined.

  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 (mutating actions, reliance on callback values), the description lacks workflow context: it doesn't explain that 'action' must come from a prior callback response, nor that 'image_id' refers to a previously generated image. Output schema is absent, so description should cover return behavior, but it does not.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for 'action', 'image_id', or 'hook_url'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states it performs relax actions like upsample, variation, zoom, pan on images from the first step, but the opening 'Do the relax action' is vague and tautological. It differentiates from sibling 'action_fast' by mentioning relax, but not explicitly.

  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 on when to use this tool versus 'action_fast' or 'generate_relax'. Does not specify that it is for post-generation actions on relax-generated images, leaving the agent unclear about workflow context.

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

• generate_fastC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses asynchronous notification via hook_url and a generation time estimate (40-60s), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe what happens if hook_url is omitted, the return format, or potential side effects, limiting completeness.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences, but it suffers from formatting issues like double spaces and a missing underscore in 'hook_ url'. It communicates the core idea efficiently but lacks polish and clear structure.

  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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits important context. It does not explain how to retrieve results (a sibling tool 'get_job_by_task_id' suggests job tracking), nor does it clarify differences with similar tools like 'generate_relax'. The missing details compromise completeness for effective agent 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description marginally adds value by mentioning 'asynchronous notifications to hook_ url' and the generation time, which relates to the prompt parameter. However, it does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for both 'prompt' and 'hook_url'.

  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 states 'generate the images fast' and provides an estimated generation time (40-60s), clearly indicating the tool's purpose of fast image generation with a specific speed benchmark. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_relax' or 'action_fast', which are likely similar but with different speed or action contexts.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given, leaving the AI agent to infer usage from the name and brief description alone.

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

• get_job_by_task_idB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions task_id expiration after 24 hours; lacks other behavioral details like response format or error handling.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence is concise but contains grammatical issues and run-on structure; could be clearer.

  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?

  Missing return value description and error handling details; for a simple retrieval tool, the description is incomplete given no output schema.

  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 covers the single parameter fully with example; description adds no additional meaning beyond stating its purpose, meeting the baseline 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?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves status for generate and action jobs using a task_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools which seem to initiate jobs.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage context is only implied by the sibling tool names.

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