Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• batch_from_templateB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that drafts are generated (a mutating action) but does not disclose side effects, whether dry_run exists or defaults to true, permission requirements, output details, or reversibility. The description is thin on behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

  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 short sentences front-load the purpose and job structure. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary detail or repetition.

  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 (3 params, generation of multiple drafts, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits key context such as dry_run behavior, output format, and when to use batch versus single-draft tools. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged since the description doesn't reference it, and the tool's success criteria remain ambiguous.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying that each job contains 'name, replacements, text_replacements', which clarifies the jobs array, and 'plaintext template' clarifies template_draft. However, it leaves dry_run unexplained and doesn't define the replacement fields fully, so compensation is partial.

  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 a specific action ('batch generate drafts') on a specific resource ('drafts') based on a 'plaintext template'. It also explains the structure of each job (name, replacements, text_replacements), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_draft (single) or build_from_reference (reference-based).

  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 for batch generation from a template via the word 'batch', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with siblings are provided; the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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

• analyze_reference_draftA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by stating encrypted drafts are explicitly rejected and that it won't guess content, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, though 'extract' implies non-destructive.

  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 adds a concise behavioral note about encryption. There is no wasteful content.

  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?

  For a tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and an edge case (encryption), but lacks parameter semantics and does not clarify how the output blueprint is structured or used. The output schema exists, so not all return details are needed, but the missing parameter guidance leaves a notable gap.

  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%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the parameters beyond the action, especially include_text, which is boolean with a default but no meaning. The description adds no value for understanding what inputs are needed or how they affect output.

  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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'read a plaintext reference draft and extract an editing blueprint.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_from_reference by focusing on analysis rather than construction, and from build_draft/batch_from_template by targeting reference drafts.

  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 for plaintext drafts and explicitly rejects encrypted drafts, but does not provide explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The context from sibling tools suggests a workflow, but the description alone doesn't explain when to choose this over other tools.

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

• build_from_referenceA
  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 burden. It describes the copy-and-replace behavior and the shape of replacements, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether an existing draft with new_draft_name is overwritten), the exact effect of dry_run, or any permission requirements. This is a mutation-like operation, yet key behavioral details are omitted.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by compact item structures. Every sentence delivers essential information without redundancy. The structure is easy to parse.

  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 (5 params, nested replacement objects) and no annotations, the description covers the replacement semantics well but omits usage guidelines and the behavior of dry_run. The output schema likely documents return values, so that gap is covered elsewhere. Overall, it's adequate but with clear gaps in guidance and edge-case behavior.

  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 schema provides zero descriptions and defines replacements/text_replacements merely as arrays of objects with additionalProperties. The description compensates by defining the exact fields for each replacement item (e.g., track_type, segment_index, source, source_start?, source_duration?) and text replacement fields. This is essential for correct invocation. Other params like reference_draft and new_draft_name are self-evident, but dry_run is not explained.

  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 copies the editing blueprint of a readable reference draft and replaces materials/text by track and segment index. It uses specific verbs (copy, replace) and identifies the resource (reference draft), distinguishing it from siblings like build_draft or batch_from_template.

  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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to create a new draft based on a reference draft with replacements. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like build_draft or batch_from_template, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'readable'.

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

• build_draftA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase build/validate-then-publish behavior and mentions that dry_run only operates in the staging area. It could elaborate on side effects like overwriting or validation failure handling, but it goes beyond a bare 'build' statement.

  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 well-structured, starting with the primary purpose followed by a formatted manifest outline and usage note. It is slightly long but each section adds value without unnecessary padding.

  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 tool has a complex nested manifest, but the description covers the main structure and field behaviors, and references an external schema for full details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It is complete enough for initial selection and invocation, though not exhaustive.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the manifest structure (draft, tracks, srt_imports), supported track types, time fields (start/duration), and media fields (source_start/source_duration/speed). dry_run is also clearly described. Detailed fields are delegated to manifest-schema.md, which is reasonable, but not all parameter semantics are fully specified.

  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's purpose: '生成新草稿' (generate a new draft) from a compact edit list. It provides a detailed manifest structure, including tracks, types, and dry-run behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_from_template and build_from_reference that likely operate from templates or existing drafts.

  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 gives clear usage context: dry_run defaults to true for building/validating in a staging area, and setting it to false publishes to the draft directory. It does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when NOT to use it, but the workflow is well defined.

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

• get_jianying_capabilitiesA
  4.5/5.0
  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 transparently discloses the tool's outputs (verified, disabled, and not-in-first-version capabilities) and the version detection, implying a read-only check. It does not explicitly state whether it has side effects or requires specific permissions, but the verb '返回' suggests a safe query.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the output categories, the version detection, and a critical usage directive. No words are wasted.

  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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to call it. The explicit 'must call before planning' instruction is an important contextual signal that makes the tool complete for an agent's planning workflow.

  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 has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and the prerequisite status, which is more than the schema alone provides. The baseline for zero parameters is 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 clearly states the tool returns three categories of capabilities (verified, disabled, and not-in-first-version) and detects the local version, using a specific verb (返回) and resource (能力). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on draft creation and templating.

  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?

  Provides an explicit usage directive: 'must be called before planning', making it clear when this tool is a prerequisite. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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