Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• image-to-videoC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a video but lacks details on execution time, rate limits, authentication needs, output format (e.g., video file type), error handling, or whether it's a synchronous/asynchronous operation. For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place by specifying the API used. No unnecessary details or fluff are included.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, video generation task) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like performance, output details, or error handling, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for a tool of this nature.

  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 fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'prompt' influences generation). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('Generate a video') and resource ('from an image'), specifying it uses the Vidu API. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check-generation-status' and 'upload-image' by focusing on video generation rather than status checking or image uploading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-sibling alternatives beyond mentioning the API.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an uploaded image first), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'check-generation-status' for monitoring generation progress. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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

• upload-imageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after upload (e.g., returns an image ID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple upload tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or integration context with Vidu API. For a tool with two parameters and no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent under-informed.

  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 fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the image is for Vidu API use, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('upload') and resource ('an image'), specifying it's for use with the Vidu API. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'image-to-video' or 'check-generation-status', but the purpose is unambiguous.

  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 like 'image-to-video'. The description mentions the Vidu API context but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical workflows, leaving usage unclear.

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

• check-generation-statusB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It states the tool checks status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, safe to call repeatedly, rate-limited, or what the response format might be (e.g., pending, completed, failed). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of a status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statuses might be returned, error handling, or usage patterns (e.g., polling intervals), which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in a workflow.

  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%, with the parameter 'task_id' fully described as 'Task ID returned by the image-to-video tool.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 purpose as checking the status of a video generation task, which is a specific verb (check) and resource (video generation task). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'image-to-video' or 'upload-image' beyond the implied relationship through the task_id parameter description.

  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 usage context by referencing 'video generation task,' and the parameter description mentions 'task_id returned by the image-to-video tool,' suggesting when to use it (after initiating a generation). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as whether it's for polling or one-time checks.

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