Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_job_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return content and polling suggestion, but doesn't mention errors, rate limits, or behavior if both parameters provided. Acceptable for simple tool but leaves gaps.

  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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and immediate details. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given no output schema, description adequately covers return type and polling guidance. Missing edge cases like simultaneous batch+jobId or timeouts, but overall complete for intended use.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by linking jobId to remove_background and batchId to batch_remove_background, clarifying source. No extra format details needed.

  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?

  Clearly states it checks status of single job or batch, returns status and result URLs. Verbs 'check' and 'returns' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools that create or download jobs via context.

  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?

  Explicitly recommends polling every 2-5 seconds until terminal status. No explicit when-not, but context implies use after job creation tools. Could add note about avoiding for initial submission, but adequate.

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

• download_resultsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses the 1-hour expiration behavior, which is critical. No annotation provided, so description carries full burden; could mention idempotency or rate limits.

  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, front-loaded sentences with 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral trait (expiration).

  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?

  Adds value by stating the job must be completed, beyond the schema's 'Job ID to retrieve download URL for'.

  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 retrieves a signed download URL for a completed job, distinguishing it from other tools like estimate_credits or remove_background.

  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?

  Implies usage for completed jobs but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives.

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

• batch_remove_backgroundA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavior: credit costs (1 or 2 credits/image), output size limits (2500px for Fast, 4096px for HD), base64 token consumption warning, and the mandatory workflow.

  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 lengthy but well-organized with numbered steps and clear sections. It front-loads the purpose and mandatory workflow. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Comprehensive coverage given complexity: 9 parameters, nested objects, multiple modes, workflow dependencies, credit costs, output limitations, base64 warnings, webhook option, and idempotency. No output schema but return value (batchId) is mentioned.

  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 67%, but the description adds significant context beyond schema: explains workflow integration, credit cost implications of hdMode, and base64 warnings. However, parameters like background and backgroundColor are not elaborated further in the description.

  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 removes backgrounds from multiple images in a batch (up to 50), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_background (single image) and estimate_credits (credit estimation).

  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?

  Provides a mandatory 3-step workflow: call estimate_credits first, get user confirmation, then call this tool and poll get_job_status. Also explains when to use HD vs Fast mode and refineEdges, and warns against base64 for large files.

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

• estimate_creditsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses credit cost per mode, resolution limits for input and output, and the workflow (check balance, get confirmation). It transparently defines behavior for both modes and addresses canAfford=false scenario.

  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?

  All sentences are informative and front-loaded. The description is well-structured with mode blocks and required steps. Slightly verbose but no redundancy; earns its length.

  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?

  Without output schema, the description covers return values (credit cost, canAfford) and user interaction. It provides all necessary context for a pre-processing estimation tool, including fallback for insufficient credits.

  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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant context beyond schema, especially for hdMode (detailed usage conditions) and imageCount (range constraints already in schema but reiterated). It clarifies parameter semantics beyond bare types.

  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 estimates credit cost and checks balance, with specific credit rates for fast and HD modes. It explicitly positions itself as a mandatory prerequisite for remove_background and batch_remove_background, distinguishing its role from sibling tools.

  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 provides explicit 'REQUIRED' usage instruction to call before processing tools, including post-call actions (display result, ask user confirmation). It also specifies conditions for HD mode and handling insufficient credits.

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

• remove_backgroundA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description fully discloses credits (1 or 2), async nature (returns jobId for polling), size limits (2500px fast, 4096px HD), refineEdges requirement, base64 token cost, and output modes. No contradictions.

  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?

  Long but every sentence earns its place due to complexity. Information is front-loaded (purpose and mandatory workflow), then details. Slightly verbose on base64 warnings but justified by importance.

  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?

  Covers all aspects: workflow, credit cost, parameter usage, file handling, sibling relationships, and output retrieval (via download_results). No gaps given the complexity and absence of output schema.

  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 has 100% description coverage, but description adds critical context beyond schemas: image parameter includes warnings and workarounds, hdMode explains when to use, refineEdges explains requirement and recommendation. Great added 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 'Remove the background from a single image' and differentiates from siblings by indicating the mandatory workflow involving estimate_credits, get_job_status, and download_results. It also contrasts with batch_remove_background (single vs batch).

  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?

  Provides explicit step-by-step workflow: call estimate_credits first, show cost, get confirmation, then call this tool, poll get_job_status, call download_results. Also gives guidance on when to use HD mode and refineEdges, and warns against base64 for large files, directing users to use public URLs or simplypng.app.

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