Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: uses Tinify.dev, beta endpoint, file naming convention, and same-format rejection. However, it doesn't cover all traits like 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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Covers main purpose, side effects, and key constraint. However, it omits explanation of the quality_mode parameter, which is not described in the schema either. Output schema exists, reducing need to describe return values.

  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 coverage is high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context for output_path default behavior and same-format error, but does not explain the quality_mode parameter, leaving a gap.

  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 converts images to specific formats (AVIF, WebP, JPEG, PNG) and distinguishes it from siblings like compress_image and resize_image by focusing on format conversion.

  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 use for format conversion but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions beta status and same-format rejection, but lacks guidance on choosing this over sibling tools.

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

• crop_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'The source image is never overwritten silently', clarifying the non-destructive default behavior. Annotations show destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description also mentions the max file size from schema, providing context.

  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 only two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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?

  The description covers purpose, input formats, output location, and overwrite safety. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'to the given rectangle' but does not elaborate on x, y, width, height specifics.

  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 verb 'crop', the resource 'image', and specifies supported formats (PNG, JPEG, WebP, AVIF). It also explains the output behavior (writes next to original or to output_path). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compress, resize, and convert.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resize_image or convert_image. It implies cropping by providing a rectangle, but lacks exclusionary guidance or comparison to siblings.

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

• resize_imageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds important safety context: the source image is never overwritten silently, and details output path behavior. This clarifies mutation safety.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes critical constraints without unnecessary words.

  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?

  With 7 parameters, high schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers output path defaults and safety. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 86%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds minor value by reinforcing the requirement for at least one of width/height/scale and the overwrite behavior, but does not significantly deepen parameter understanding.

  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 resizes images (PNG, JPEG, WebP, AVIF) using Tinify.dev by width, height, or scale, and specifies output behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like compress_image and crop_image.

  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 context on when to use the tool (resizing images) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives. It states the requirement for at least one dimension parameter.

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

• compress_imageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains that the API never returns more bytes, honestly reports if it cannot shrink (optimized: false), and clarifies that the source image is never overwritten unless output_path points at it and overwrite is true. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false is consistent with writing a new file).

  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, front-loaded with the main action and key formats. Every sentence provides essential information 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?

  Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description covers the core behaviors: input formats, output behavior, and honesty flag. It is complete for a compression tool, including edge cases like inability to shrink.

  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 by explaining the default output path naming ('<name>.min.<ext>') and the key behavior of the API (honest failure reporting), which reinforces parameter constraints without repeating schema details.

  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 compresses PNG, JPEG, WebP, or AVIF images using Tinify.dev and writes the smaller file. The verb 'compress' and explicit format list make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from siblings like resize, crop, or convert.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (when you need to reduce file size), but no exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings like resize_image is provided.

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

• get_usageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds context about the specific data returned (plan, period, operations used). No contradictions exist.

  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?

  Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place. No redundancy.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return structure. It covers the key categories of usage information. Given the tool's simplicity, it is fully complete.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Per rules, baseline is 4 for 0-param tools. The description focuses on output, which is acceptable.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Tinify.dev account's current billing-period usage', listing key fields (plan, period, operations included, used, remaining). This distinguishes it from sibling image processing tools.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use or not use the tool, but sibling tools are all image manipulation, so usage context is clear by contrast. A note on when it is appropriate would improve clarity, but the current level is adequate.

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