Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_cam_fpsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses that it is a query operation and explains return values, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or error cases. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes clarifying details. No superfluous words are present.

  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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. The value mapping is included. Minor missing context about error handling or compatibility is not critical for a simple query.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific context because none is needed.

  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 queries the phone's current camera FPS setting and explains the meaning of the return values (15=high performance, 2=balanced, 0=on-demand). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_live_frame and read_sensors.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied from the naming and explanation, but no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.

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

• get_live_frameA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description takes full burden. It discloses the return type (JPEG) and the fallback to test image when phone unreachable. Missing details like blocking nature or error handling, but adequately transparent.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. No wasted words.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, description provides essential behavior and fallback. Could mention if the frame is real-time or cached, but complete enough for a simple 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?

  Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; no additional parameter info needed.

  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?

  Clearly states it returns one current frame from phone camera in JPEG format, distinguishing it from siblings like get_cam_fps (frame rate) and read_sensors (sensor data).

  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?

  Implies usage for getting a single camera frame but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or specify when not to use. The fallback behavior is mentioned but no guidance on choosing between this and other tools.

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

• read_sensorsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that it returns current instantaneous values as JSON. Lists included sensors. Could be more explicit about one-time read nature and lack of side effects, but adequate given no 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?

  Single sentence, highly efficient, lists all key info (what, format, sensors).

  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?

  Zero parameters and output schema present. Description sufficiently explains tool behavior and return content; omitted units are minor.

  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?

  No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed. Baseline score of 4 applies.

  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?

  Clearly states it reads phone sensor values (battery, illuminance, acceleration) and returns as JSON. Differentiates from camera-related sibling tools.

  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 or when-not-to-use guidance, but sibling names imply it is for general sensor data, not camera-specific data.

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

• get_referenceA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: dependency on phone's reference mode (LIVE, Capture, File), handling of non-image files, return format, and storage location (Downloads folder, not temp). It also warns against reusing stale copies.

  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?

  Every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the core action, then details modes and return values. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

  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?

  Given zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description explains the output fields (path, mime, bytes, name) and covers edge cases like non-image files and different modes. It provides complete context for using the 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?

  The input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; it correctly focuses on behavior.

  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 downloads the phone's current 'share target' to the PC, saves it, and returns path and metadata. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_live_frame' by noting the latter is simpler for image previews only.

  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 on when to use (to fetch the current designation) and when not to (avoid reusing stale files). It mentions an alternative ('get_live_frame') but does not address other siblings like 'get_cam_fps' or 'read_sensors'.

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