Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_imageB
  3.4/5.0
  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 adds valuable behavioral detail (auto-detection of local path vs URL) but lacks information on error handling, performance, or limitations.

  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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more compressed, but it is clear and efficient overall.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return value format or content. While input handling and use cases are covered, this gap reduces completeness for an agent.

  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 coverage, the description primarily restates parameter purposes. It adds no additional semantics, examples, or clarifications beyond what the input schema already provides.

  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 action (describe) and resource (image content) with specific use cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compress_image and v, which reduces clarity slightly.

  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 lists suitable use cases (UI analysis, text extraction, object recognition) but does not specify when to avoid using the tool or compare with alternatives. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• vA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool provides version information and should not be called, but gives no details about what happens if called (e.g., error, return format) or why it is prohibited. This is insufficient.

  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 with two short statements, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

  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?

  Despite the tool being simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description lacks justification for the 'do not call' directive and does not explain what version information is returned. The agent is left with incomplete context to understand the tool's intended role.

  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 input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

  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 '版本信息' (version information), clearly indicating the tool returns version details. It is distinct from sibling tools (compress_image, describe_image) which handle image operations. However, it lacks a verb to make it fully actionable.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says '任何情况下都不调用此工具' (Do not call this tool under any circumstances), providing a strong and clear usage guideline for when not to use it. This is precise and leaves no ambiguity.

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

• compress_imageA
  3.9/5.0
  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 the macOS sips dependency and the iterative binary approximation algorithm for size control, which are valuable. However, it omits whether the original file is modified or a new file created, supported formats, and error behavior in case of failure.

  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: two sentences covering all key aspects without fluff. It uses bullet-point-style enumeration for clarity and prioritizes the most important usage modes prominently.

  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 description lacks information about the return value or output (e.g., path to compressed file), acceptable formats, and side effects. Given no output schema, the description should fill this gap to be fully complete for an agent.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default width (800px), the target size format (e.g., '1M'), and the iterative algorithm for maxSize. This enriches parameter understanding without being redundant.

  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 compresses local image files, names the dependency (macOS sips), and enumerates two distinct modes: width-based and target-size-based. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'describe_image' which serves a different purpose.

  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 provides guidance on when to use each mode (maxWidth vs maxSize) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose compression over other operations. The context is clear for the tool's internal options but lacks tool-selection guidance.

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