Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_taskB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It notes async behavior and TOS upload but omits side effects, permissions, failure modes, or rate limits. The description only partially discloses behavioral traits.

  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 concise with three bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place, but structure could be slightly improved with clearer differentiation from siblings.

  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 description covers input parameters well but lacks output schema explanation (e.g., task ID or status). With no annotations and multiple siblings, more context on post-creation steps would improve completeness.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters and explains the two upload modes, but does not add new information beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

  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 creates an async video enhancement task and distinguishes between two upload methods (URL and local). It uses specific verbs and resources, and is not a tautology.

  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 explains when to use each upload type (URL vs local) but does not explicitly guide when to use this async tool over its sync sibling (enhance_video_sync) or other tools like get_task_status.

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

• get_task_statusB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The description only states it queries status, implying read-only, but does not mention idempotency, permissions, or response characteristics. This is a significant gap.

  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?

  A single sentence in Chinese efficiently conveys the core function. No extraneous information, but no structuring or front-loading. Appropriate for a simple tool.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention what the returned status looks like or any edge cases, leaving some ambiguity for an AI 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100% (task_id is described as '任务ID'). The tool's description adds context that the task is for video enhancement, which loosely connects the parameter to the tool's purpose. However, it does not elaborate beyond the 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 '查询视频增强任务状态' (query video enhancement task status) clearly states the tool's action (query) and resource (task status for video enhancement). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_task (creation) and enhance_video_sync (enhancement).

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it should be used after creating a task, but no when-not or alternatives are provided. Adequate but minimal.

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

• enhance_video_syncA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'blocking wait for completion', explains the automatic upload of local files to TOS storage, and mentions polling parameters, giving good transparency. It does not mention side effects, but given the nature, none are expected.

  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 bullet points and clear categorization of upload methods and parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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 covers the blocking nature, upload methods, and all parameters thoroughly. It lacks an explicit description of the return value, but given the synchronous nature, it likely returns the enhanced video. Overall, it is fairly complete for a tool without an output schema.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the automatic upload process for local files and that URLs must be publicly accessible. This extra information enhances understanding of parameter usage.

  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: to enhance video synchronously, with a blocking wait. It details two upload methods (URL and local), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different operations like task creation or status checking.

  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 explains the two upload methods and the blocking nature, implicitly indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_task (likely async) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, making usage guidelines less explicit.

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

• sam3_predictA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it calls an external API and generates masks, boxes, scores. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication, error handling, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

  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 bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, explaining input methods and prompt requirements without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

  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?

  The description covers what the tool does (segmentation analysis), how to provide input (three methods), and what outputs are generated (masks, boxes, scores). Even without an output schema, it gives sufficient information for an agent to use the tool 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?

  Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by explaining usage contexts for each image parameter and specifying that the prompt must be in English, requiring translation if needed. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

  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: 'Analyze an image using the SAM3 segmentation API to generate inference results (masks, boxes, scores).' This specifies the verb (analyze), resource (image via SAM3 API), and output, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like create_task.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use each image input method (imagePath, imageUrl, imageBase64) and includes instructions for handling non-English prompts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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