Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• wanx-t2i-image-generation-resultC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' results, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what happens if the task_id is invalid (e.g., errors, null returns), or the format of the results (e.g., image data, JSON metadata). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details (e.g., clarifying 'result' as image retrieval). There's no wasted text, earning a high score for conciseness.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (a result-retrieval operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's semantics, behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The input schema has 1 parameter (task_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'task_id' is (e.g., an ID from a prior generation request), its format, or how to obtain it. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this falls short of the baseline.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool '获取阿里云万相文生图大模型的文生图结果' which translates to 'Get the text-to-image generation results of Alibaba Cloud Wanxiang text-to-image model.' This specifies the action (get results) and resource (text-to-image generation results), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly 'results' entails (e.g., images, metadata, status). It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'wanx-t2i-image-generation' (which likely initiates generation) or 'wanx-t2v-video-generation-result' (which handles video results).

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id from a previous generation request), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'wanx-t2i-image-generation' (presumably for initiating tasks) or 'wanx-t2v-video-generation-result' (for video results). Usage is implied only through the name 'result,' but no explicit context is given.

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

• wanx-t2v-video-generation-resultC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' results, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it polls for completion, returns partial results, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what happens if the task_id is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an async API.

  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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the complexity (likely involving async video generation results), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., video URL, status), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively.

  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?

  The description doesn't mention parameters, and schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions for the 'task_id' parameter). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher. The description implies a 'task_id' is needed to retrieve results, adding minimal context beyond the schema's structure, but doesn't explain what a task_id is or where to get it.

  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 ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'retrieve') and the resource ('文生视频结果' meaning 'text-to-video generation result'), specifying it's for the Alibaba Cloud Wanx model. It distinguishes from the sibling 'wanx-t2v-video-generation' (which likely initiates generation) by focusing on result retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id from a prior generation request), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'wanx-t2v-video-generation' (presumably for initiating generation). Usage is implied but not stated.

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

• wanx-t2i-image-generationB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous behavior (needs result tool) and performance characteristic (takes time), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens if generation fails, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

  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 two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and usage requirement. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with critical behavioral information, with no wasted words.

  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?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the asynchronous workflow but doesn't cover parameter meanings, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the three parameters (prompt, negative_prompt, seed), their formats, or examples. This leaves parameters completely undocumented beyond the schema structure.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool uses Alibaba Cloud's Wanxiang text-to-image model for image generation, which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what kind of images it generates or differentiate from the video generation sibling tools, making it somewhat vague.

  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 explicitly states that image generation takes time and requires calling 'wanx-t2i-image-generation-result' to get results, providing clear context for usage. It doesn't mention when to use this versus the video generation tools, but the time constraint guidance is helpful.

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

• wanx-t2v-video-generationA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 adds useful context about the asynchronous nature (long processing time) and the need to poll with another tool, which is critical for understanding the tool's behavior. However, it doesn't mention other traits like potential rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what happens if the prompt is invalid—leaving gaps for a mutation 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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

  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 tool's complexity (asynchronous video generation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and the need for a result tool, but lacks details on error handling, output format, or integration with siblings beyond the result tool. For a mutation tool with significant behavioral implications, more context would be beneficial.

  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?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'prompt' parameter is for text input to generate video, but doesn't add specific meaning beyond that (e.g., format, length constraints, or examples). Since schema coverage is low, the description provides minimal semantic value, meeting the baseline but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

  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: it uses Alibaba Cloud's Wanxiang text-to-video model to generate videos from text prompts. It specifies the exact capability ('text-to-video generation') and mentions the resource (Alibaba Cloud Wanxiang model). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'wanx-t2i-image-generation' (text-to-image), though the naming implies the distinction.

  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 by stating that video generation takes a long time and requires calling 'wanx-t2v-video-generation-result' to get results. This gives practical guidance on when to use this tool (for initiating generation) versus the sibling result tool (for retrieving results). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like text-to-image, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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