Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• renderGeometricImageB
  3.3/5.0
  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 that the tool 'Renders an image' and implies execution of code, but it doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid code), performance (e.g., rendering time), or output specifics (e.g., image dimensions). The description is minimal, leaving gaps in transparency for a code-execution 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: 'Renders an image from Asymptote code.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

  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 complexity (code execution with optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover output details (e.g., what the image looks like, error responses) or behavioral aspects. However, the schema provides good parameter documentation, so it's minimally adequate but lacks context for a tool that executes external code.

  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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details on 'asyCode' and 'outputParams'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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: 'Renders an image from Asymptote code.' It specifies the verb ('Renders') and resource ('image'), and while there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, the description is specific about the input type (Asymptote code). However, it doesn't mention what kind of image is produced (e.g., geometric diagrams, plots) beyond the Asymptote context, which could be more precise.

  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, as there are no sibling tools mentioned. It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., generating diagrams for documentation, creating plots) or prerequisites (e.g., needing valid Asymptote syntax). Without siblings, the score is based on the absence of any usage context or exclusions.

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