Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_best_imageC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Best image' is vague—it doesn't explain how 'best' is determined, what happens when no match exists, or the output format. The description adds only the bare minimum that a single image is returned.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single short sentence, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it's so sparse that it omits valuable context that could be added without bloating the description, like criteria for 'best' or relationship to sibling tools.

  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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is functionally thin. It doesn't address key contextual elements like disambiguation from other search tools or behavioral edge cases, making it incomplete for a new agent.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, merely echoing the notion of a query and not mentioning orientation. Since schema coverage is 100%, no penalty, but no added value either.

  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 'Return' and identifies the resource 'best image' with a query scope, making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_images, which may also return images, beyond the 'single best' phrasing.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_images or search_images_batch. The description only states the mechanical function, with no context about selection criteria or expected use cases.

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

• search_imagesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool searches royalty-free images and supports filters. It does not mention read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format, which are relevant for an external API search 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 a single, focused sentence that states the main purpose and key filters upfront. No unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details, making it highly concise and 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?

  The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns, but it does not explicitly mention the result type or structure. However, the schema fully documents parameters and the tool is a straightforward search, making the description minimally viable but not complete for returning data.

  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 descriptions already cover all four parameters with clear explanations (e.g., query, page, limit, orientation). The description adds the context of royalty-free sources but does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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: searching for royalty-free images from Pexels and Unsplash. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_images_batch, resolve_image_attribution, extract_image_query, and get_best_image.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions supported filters but does not state when a user should choose this over search_images_batch or extract_image_query, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• search_images_batchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior (parallel execution, results keyed by query) but lacks information on failure handling, ordering, or performance implications. Partial but not complete transparency.

  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 short sentences with the main verb and resource front-loaded. No redundant information; every word contributes meaning.

  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 simple two-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the core capability and return structure. It lacks error-handling details, but given low complexity and full schema coverage, it is largely complete.

  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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that results are keyed by query, hinting at the role of the `queries` parameter, but does not go beyond 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 it runs multiple image searches in parallel, which distinguishes it from the single-search sibling tool `search_images`. It also specifies the output format (keyed by query), fully clarifying what the tool does.

  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 the tool is for multiple queries via 'in parallel', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like `search_images` for single queries or state when not to use this batch version. Context is clear but no exclusions are given.

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

• resolve_image_attributionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the useful context that output is 'provider-compliant' and gives an example, but it does not disclose how the optional URL is used, what happens with unsupported sources, or the exact return format beyond inference.

  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 sentence with a helpful parenthetical example. It conveys the essential purpose without redundant words or restating the title.

  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?

  The tool is simple and the description is mostly sufficient, but without an output schema it does not explicitly state the return type or the role of the optional URL parameter. The example implies a plain-text result, but agents may need more clarity on optional inputs.

  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 already documents all parameters (100% coverage), but the description's example 'Photo by X on Pexels' adds meaningful formatting semantics, showing how photographer and source combine into the output text.

  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 specific action 'Generate' and the resource 'provider-compliant attribution text for an image', with an illustrative example. This distinguishes it from sibling search/extraction tools.

  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 this tool is used after selecting an image to produce proper attribution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The sibling tool names suggest different purposes (searching, extracting, getting best image), but no direct comparison is provided.

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

• extract_image_queryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core processing ('noun extraction') and output (a search query), but lacks detail on edge cases, failure modes, or the exact output format. It is not misleading but leaves room for ambiguity.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and mechanism without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and structured for quick understanding.

  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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description is fairly complete. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the exact return type (e.g., whether the query is a string or object), and it does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling search tools. Still, it covers the essential transformation.

  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 already provides a description for 'context' ('Free-form text to extract search terms from'), and the tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states a specific action ('Transform free-form text into an optimized image search query') and mechanism ('noun extraction'), distinguishing it from sibling search/attribution tools. It names the resource and the transformation clearly.

  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 clear context for when to use (given free-form text like UI copy or context) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. It implies the use case without exclusions, so slightly below an explicit 5.

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