Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• uploadB
  3.4/5.0
  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 uploads are processed in chunks for large files and returns a streaming response, adding useful behavioral context. However, it misses critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response contains, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The URL details are relevant but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by explaining outcomes, though it could be more streamlined for clarity.

  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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the upload process and resulting URLs but lacks details on response format, error cases, or authentication, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that performs mutations.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies the URL format for uploaded assets, which relates to public_id and resource_type, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics for the 5 parameters.

  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 uploads media (images/videos) to Cloudinary, specifying the verb 'upload' and resource 'media to Cloudinary'. However, it doesn't distinguish from any siblings (none exist) and could be more specific about the 'raw' resource_type mentioned in the schema.

  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 for uploading media to Cloudinary, mentioning large files use chunked processing, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. Without siblings, differentiation isn't needed, but it lacks context like prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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