Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• previewA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the output is a PNG base64, background is transparent, animations are static snapshots, and width can be omitted or specified. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided). However, it does not explain the 'format' parameter's effect (e.g., when to use 'html') though schema covers it.

  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 well-structured with sections (When to use, Input, Behavior, Width), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary text.

  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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key behaviors and usage contexts. It does not explicitly state mutual exclusivity of artifact and content, but the 'pass EITHER' guidance implies it.

  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 meaning by explaining that 'artifact' is preferred over 'content', width can be left to default, and content is only needed when no artifact id exists.

  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 states clearly 'Render SVG content to a PNG image so the AI can visually inspect the output.' It distinguishes from sibling tool render_svg by noting that render_svg already returns a preview and this tool is for re-previewing or previewing external SVG.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The 'When to use' section explicitly tells when to use this tool vs render_svg, including re-previewing artifacts or previewing SVG from other sources. It also advises to stop iterating when visual result matches intent.

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

• render_svgA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that SVG text stays on the server (access via artifact id), describes output format (PNG preview + artifact id), explains field name differences from raw SVG, critical format rules, and the behavior of pattern groups and parametric curves. No contradictions.

  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 long but well-structured with sections (Workflow, output options, element types, pattern groups, etc.). Every sentence adds necessary detail given the complexity of SVG rendering. Slightly verbose but justified; could be tightened without losing clarity.

  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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: input structure, workflow, output format, edge cases (field name differences, format rules), and usage of defs and animations. It explains return values (PNG preview + artifact id) despite no output schema.

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

  Parameters5/5

  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 fully. It provides extensive detail on each parameter group (canvas, elements, animations, output, defs) with examples, required fields, and format constraints (e.g., gradient type must be 'linearGradient', elements need 'type' field). This goes far beyond the bare schema.

  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 begins with 'Render animated SVG from JSON config', clearly stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes from siblings (preview, save) via workflow context, and the detailed enumeration of element types, animations, and output options reinforces the specific purpose.

  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 an explicit iterative workflow ('critique, revise, render again, iterate at least 3 times'), explains when to use output options like 'svg:true', and when to preview for different widths. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool relative to the sibling tools, though the context strongly implies it.

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

• saveA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behaviors: format detection (auto, svg, png), file overwrite prevention with numeric counter, and input options (artifact vs content). No contradictions.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections, bullet points, and bolded keywords. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff. Efficiently communicates complex behavior in a few paragraphs.

  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?

  For a tool with 5 params, no annotations, and no output schema, description covers all aspects: input selection, format handling, overwrite behavior, and return value. 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.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds crucial context: width defaults to source dimensions, artifact is preferred over content, outputPath explains counter behavior, format enum values are elaborated. Adds significant value beyond schema.

  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 'Save rendered content to disk' and distinguishes itself from siblings (preview, render_svg) by specifying it is for final saving after iterating on design.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use this only AFTER iterating on the design with render_svg's preview images' and warns 'Do not save on the first render', providing clear usage context and when-not-to-use.

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