Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• probe_mediaC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inspection nature and tools used, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the file), required permissions, or what 'three-point decoding' entails. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

  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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Front-loading is adequate but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

  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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not mention return values (though output schema may cover this), prerequisites, or the meaning of the decode check option. The lack of context makes it insufficient for confident use.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage; the description does not explain any parameter beyond implicit reference to 'optional three-point decoding' (possibly relating to decode_check). It adds no meaningful context about path, decode_check, or require_audio beyond the schema.

  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 states it inspects a local media file using specific tools (FFprobe, SHA-256) and optional decode check, clearly identifying the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings but the sibling tools (Douyin-related) are in a different domain, so purpose is clear.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does without context on use cases or exclusions.

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

• download_douyin_mediaA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description adds important behavioral details: handling of missing audio stream (video-only fallback) and security note about signed URLs. This compensates well for the absence of annotations.

  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?

  Two sentences plus a bullet point; compact and front-loaded with the core action. However, the list of operations (stream-copy, mux, etc.) is somewhat dense and could be reorganized for readability.

  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?

  An output schema exists (not shown) but the description references a return field (media_mode) and warning, which helps. However, with 6 parameters and no explanations, the description is insufficient for full understanding of the tool's behavior.

  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%. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., quality, filename, overwrite). The only indirectly related info is about audio stream handling, which does not clarify 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 action: download Douyin media, and lists specific operations (stream-copy mux, probe, decode-check, hash). It distinguishes from siblings which are URL resolution and probing.

  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 when-to-use vs alternatives; however, sibling tools have distinct purposes (resolve URL, probe media), making usage somewhat implied. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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

• resolve_douyin_urlA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states limitations: does not save media, does not expose signed stream URLs, and challenges are reported but not bypassed. This is transparent, though it could mention if any authentication or rate limits apply.

  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 sentences no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and constraints, the second explains modes. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

  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 has an output schema, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, behavior, and mode guidance. It might be missing potential error scenarios or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a URL resolution tool.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the url parameter implicitly (the share URL) and thoroughly describes browser_mode options ('auto', 'direct', 'browser') with their behaviors, adding meaning beyond the schema's defaults.

  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 resolves a Douyin share URL without saving media or exposing signed stream URLs. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('Douyin share URL'), and distinguishes from siblings like download_douyin_media (saves media) and probe_media (likely probes, not resolves).

  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 clear guidance on using browser_mode: 'auto' normally, 'direct' for redirect expansion, 'browser' for Playwright observation. It mentions human verification challenges are reported but not bypassed, implying when not to expect full resolution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools like download_douyin_media.

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