Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_imageC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying model and language support but does not describe return format, side effects, permissions, or any operational constraints, leaving the behavior largely unspecified.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the primary function and language support, but it omits potentially valuable guidance on usage and behavior, so it is not maximally concise in the sense of covering all essentials.

  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?

  The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description lacks any indication of return values or expected output behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's result.

  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 provides descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 the tool uses GLM-4V Flash to analyze image content, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like describe_image or extract_text, leaving overlap in intent ambiguous.

  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 such as describe_image or extract_text. The description only states what it does, offering no contextual advice or exclusions.

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

• extract_textB
  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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'OCR function' without mentioning what the return value looks like, potential failure modes, language auto-detection behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap given the lack 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?

  The description is a single concise sentence, but the parenthetical '(OCR 功能)' somewhat redundantly restates the first part. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

  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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, but it lacks guidance on usage context and return value expectations. It is adequate but not fully complete given the absence of annotations and output schema.

  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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping the baseline score of 3.

  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 extracts text from images using OCR, which is a specific verb+resource pair. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_image and analyze_image, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 OCR mention implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over describe_image or analyze_image, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

• describe_imageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool generates a description but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that processes files.

  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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning a perfect score.

  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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It implies the output is a text description but doesn't mention the style variations or return type. The presence of sibling tools and the absence of annotations leave some gaps, but the description is sufficient for basic use.

  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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (image_path and style), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 clearly states the tool's function: generating a detailed description of an image, with a specific purpose (image annotation or accessibility). It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_text, though not explicitly from analyze_image. The verb 'generate' and resource 'image' are clear.

  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 context for when to use the tool: for image annotation or accessibility purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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