Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• detect-human-pose-keypointsC
  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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the output (17 keypoints per person) and implies analysis use, but lacks details on performance (e.g., speed, accuracy), limitations (e.g., image quality requirements), or side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation-like detection 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-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 the tool's complexity (detection with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., keypoint coordinates, confidence scores), error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., image format support), leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

  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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'includeDescription' relates to keypoints or image processing. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's function: detecting 17 keypoints per person in an image for posture/movement analysis. It specifies the verb ('detects'), resource ('keypoints'), and scope ('each person in an image'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect-all-objects' or 'detect-objects-by-text', which likely serve different detection purposes.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where human pose detection is preferred over general object detection, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• visualize-detection-resultB
  3.1/5.0
  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 provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions that 'Images are saved to the directory specified by IMAGE_STORAGE_DIRECTORY environment variable' which is useful context about output location, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the directory doesn't exist, what file format is used, or whether the original image is modified versus a copy being created.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about where results are saved. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of concerns.

  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?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, output file paths, error conditions), doesn't mention dependencies on sibling tools, and provides minimal behavioral context. The description leaves too many important questions unanswered 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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid detections arrays, or offer guidance on appropriate values for fontSize and boxThickness.

  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 specific action ('Visualize detection results by drawing bounding boxes and labels on the original image') and distinguishes it from sibling detection tools by focusing on visualization rather than detection. It specifies the exact resource being modified (the original image with annotations added).

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing detection results first), doesn't explain relationships to sibling detection tools, and offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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

• detect-all-objectsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 that including descriptions 'will take longer to process,' which adds some context about performance impact. However, it doesn't address other important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid inputs, which are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, action, and output without any redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word serving a clear purpose in explaining what the tool does.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (image analysis with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and output format specifics. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, which it doesn't do beyond listing output categories.

  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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (imageFileUri and includeDescription). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by briefly mentioning that includeDescription affects processing time, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage context for the parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

  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 specific action ('Analyze an image to detect all identifiable objects') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'all identifiable objects' rather than specific types like human poses or text-based detection. It provides the verb+resource+scope combination that makes the 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 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 the sibling tools (detect-human-pose-keypoints, detect-objects-by-text, visualize-detection-result). It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent with no comparative usage information.

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

• detect-objects-by-textA
  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 carries the full burden. It mentions that including descriptions will 'take longer to process', which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like potential rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining what the tool does.

  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 there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally provide more context about return values and behavioral constraints. While it mentions what will be returned (descriptions and coordinates), it doesn't specify the format or structure of the output. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no structured output documentation, the description is adequate but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

  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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of returned coordinates or how object counts are calculated). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('analyze an image based on a text prompt'), the resource ('image'), and the outcome ('identify and count specific objects, return detailed descriptions and 2D coordinates'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detect-all-objects' by specifying text-based filtering and from 'detect-human-pose-keypoints' by focusing on object detection rather than pose analysis.

  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 through its purpose statement but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detect-all-objects' or 'visualize-detection-result'. It mentions the text prompt requirement, which suggests this tool is for targeted object detection, but lacks clear guidance on scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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