Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate-imageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 meaningful behavioral traits: returns absolute PNG paths, draft speed is ~2 s/image, finals finish at preset output resolution, and an upscale pipeline is included. It does not cover failure/error behavior, but provides solid practical 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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the operationally important output and performance details. Every clause 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 is largely complete for a complex 8-parameter tool: no output schema exists, so it explains return format (absolute PNG paths), and it adds performance and resolution context. Remaining gaps like refine-mode behavior and when to use sibling tools are minor because the schema already details the parameters.

  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 eight parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 rather than a higher score.

  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 function: generating Foundry table art via a local ComfyUI instance. It is specific about the resource and output type, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools like upscale-image, so it stops short of a 5.

  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 usage context by contrasting draft speed and final render quality, and by noting that finals include an upscale pipeline. However, it does not explicitly direct when to use this tool versus upscale-image or artificer-status, leaving some routing to inference.

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

• upscale-imageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool processes an existing image and returns a path, but doesn't state whether the source is overwritten, what side effects occur, or operational constraints. This is moderate disclosure for a non-destructive-looking pipeline.

  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 primary action, no filler. Every clause adds information: pipeline, kind-based resolution, usage condition, and return 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?

  For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and the return value. It lacks operational details like sync/async behavior or output location, but these are minor given schema descriptions.

  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 baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning over the schema's parameter documentation; it simply refers to 'kind' without detailing the enum or slug semantics.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('existing image through model-upscale pipeline'), and clarifies the output ('finished resolution', 'finished PNG path'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling generate-image, but the 'existing image' phrasing implies a finishing step rather than creation.

  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?

  'Use on a draft that won curation as-is' gives a clear condition for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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

• artificer-statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It fairly thoroughly enumerates what is checked, which implies a non-mutating health check, but it never explicitly states that the tool only reads state or what kind of result the agent should expect. The safety profile is implied rather than stated.

  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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Health check') and then itemizes the checks, closing with an actionable call-time directive. Every part is informative and there is no filler.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description conveys what the tool inspects and when to call it, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately. The absence of an output schema and explicit return-format details is a minor gap, but the listed checks compensate reasonably well.

  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 tool accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters, so it correctly loses no points and gets the zero-parameter baseline of 4.

  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 opens with 'Health check' and clearly identifies the resource (ComfyUI/Artificer environment) plus the specific aspects monitored: reachability/version, VRAM, queue depth, pinned-workflow integrity, and required-model presence. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling generation 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 explicitly says 'Call this first when generation misbehaves,' giving a concrete trigger and ordering recommendation. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a diagnostic status tool without natural siblings, the guidance is clear enough.

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