Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vision_analyze_fileA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reveals the input constraint (public URL only), the effect of thinking parameter, and the exact return JSON structure (both success and error). It does not mention potential rate limits or file size limits, but the provided details are substantial and useful.

  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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second covers constraints, and the third explains parameters and return format. No filler.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema in structured form), the description covers all necessary aspects: input constraints, parameter meanings, return format, and error handling. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: source (file URL, public only), question (question about the document), and thinking (enable deep thinking). This adds all necessary meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

  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 analyzes a document file (PDF/text) and answers questions, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (vision_analyze_image, vision_analyze_video) by focusing on documents, making its purpose immediately clear.

  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 usage context: source must be a publicly accessible URL, and local files need to be uploaded first. It also explains the thinking flag. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, leaving the when-to-use decision implied by the file type rather than stated.

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

• vision_analyze_videoA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 reveals the URL-only restriction, the effect of thinking=True, and the exact return JSON structure including both success and error formats. Though it omits details like rate limits or video size constraints, it covers the key behavioral aspects for this tool's scope.

  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 neatly structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by specific input constraints, parameter definitions, and return format. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it concise and efficiently front-loaded.

  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 tool with no annotations and a sparse schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema exists but the description even summarizes the response shape, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: source's URL requirement and handling of local files, question's role, and thinking's boolean toggle meaning. This exceeds what the schema provides and clarifies how to use each argument correctly.

  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's function: 'Analyze a video and answer questions.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like vision_analyze_image and vision_analyze_file by focusing on video input.

  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?

  It provides explicit context on usage prerequisites: source must be a publicly accessible URL and local videos must be uploaded first. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or offer exclusion criteria, the video-specific purpose and constraints give clear operational guidance.

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

• vision_analyze_imageA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-base64 conversion for local paths, the thinking mode's trade-off, and the exact JSON return structure including error format.

  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 compact paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then explains parameters, and ends with return format. 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?

  Despite having an output schema, the description also specifies the return structure. It covers all parameters, input types, and the optional thinking mode. It is complete for a straightforward analysis tool.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains all three parameters (source, question, thinking) in detail, including allowed values and effects. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 it analyzes an image and answers questions, using the verb '分析' (analyze) and resource '图片' (image). This differentiates it from sibling tools that analyze video or files.

  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?

  It explains that source can be a local path or URL, and question is the query, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with video/file tools. The scope is implied by the tool's name and the description.

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