Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• video.cleanupB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Remove', which is destructive, but fails to describe implications (e.g., permanent deletion, no undo, potential errors if directory is missing or in use).

  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 concise sentence with no fluff. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the action.

  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 simplicity, the description omits critical behavioral details like destructive nature and potential return values. With no output schema, it should at least note success/error indicators.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds context by noting the outputDir should come from video.extract_scenes, which helps the agent source the correct value.

  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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'generated video scene output directory', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like video.extract_scenes which generates the directory.

  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 context. It simply states the action without explaining typical usage scenarios or when not to use it.

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

• video.extract_scenesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that audio is not analyzed, which is a helpful limitation. However, it fails to disclose that the tool may create output files (via outputDir or temporary files), its potential cost (CPU/memory usage), or that it requires ffmpeg (though siblings hint at this). These gaps leave the agent partially uninformed.

  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 at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and then adds a key limitation. Every word is informative and earns its place.

  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 tool has six parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and a limitation, but lacks details on output artifacts, performance implications, and error conditions. For a moderate-complexity tool, the description is adequate yet incomplete, warranting a middle score.

  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% parameter description coverage. The tool description adds the context of scene detection and fallback sampling, which clarifies the 'mode' parameter but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description accurately specifies the tool's function: extracting timestamped screenshots using ffmpeg scene detection with fallback sampling. It clearly states the resource (video) and the action (extract scenes). The sibling tools are about ffmpeg management, so this tool is distinct 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 Guidelines3/5

  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. The description implies it's for extracting frames from local video files, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ffmpeg installation) or scenarios where it might not be suitable. Given the siblings handle ffmpeg installation, context is partially provided, but not in the description.

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

• video.install_ffmpegA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can run package-manager commands and that dry-run is default, implying no changes unless execute is true. However, it does not cover potential side effects, permissions, or error handling, which are relevant for a command-executing 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?

  Two concise sentences: first states the main action (return or run commands), second explains the default and parameter. No fluff, every word adds value. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It mentions detection of install commands and execution. Missing details about return format or error handling, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

  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% (the parameter is well-documented in the schema). The description adds the term 'dry-run' but essentially restates the schema's info. No new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so score is 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?

  The description clearly states the tool returns or runs detected ffmpeg install commands. It specifies the default dry-run behavior and the parameter to execute. This distinguishes it from siblings like video.check_ffmpeg (checking) and video.cleanup/extract_scenes.

  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 provides clear context: dry-run by default, and use 'execute: true' to actually run commands. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the usage is straightforward given the single boolean parameter. Sibling context helps differentiate use cases.

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

• video.check_ffmpegA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool checks availability and returns install guidance, which is sufficient for a non-destructive check. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it is clear but lacks details on what 'install guidance' entails.

  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, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose and outcome. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline score of 4 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 the tool checks availability of ffmpeg and ffprobe and returns install guidance if missing. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like cleanup, extract_scenes, and install_ffmpeg.

  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 (check before using other video tools) but does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names help, but no direct guidance.

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