Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• resize_for_platformC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It states AI generative fill usage but omits key details: whether the tool actually resizes or only returns a URL, the output format, error handling, or permissions. The implication of mutation (resizing) is ambiguous.

  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 are concise and efficient. The purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence could be integrated more tightly. No unnecessary information.

  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?

  No output schema and no annotations, so description must compensate. It fails to explain the tool's output (e.g., URL object vs string), how to use the result, or any constraints. Edge cases (e.g., what if aspect ratio is similar?) are unaddressed.

  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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context for useGenFill (auto-detect based on aspect ratio difference), but does not enhance semantics for other parameters. Baseline 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?

  Description clearly states the tool generates a Cloudinary transformation URL for resizing for a specific platform. It distinguishes from general resize tools by specifying 'advertising platform/channel', but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like batch_resize or generate_transform_url.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies platform-specific use but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts. Siblings exist but are not referenced.

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

• get_platform_specsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only and lists included data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

  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, well-front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function. Minor improvement possible by structuring the listed items.

  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?

  The description lists what the tool returns but does not specify the return format or structure. Given no output schema and low complexity, it is adequate but could be more complete.

  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 does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides via the 'channel' parameter description.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specifications for an advertising platform or channel', listing what is included (dimensions, aspect ratios, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools that handle resizing or validation.

  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 when to use the tool (to retrieve specifications) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or detailed alternatives among siblings like batch_resize or validate_asset.

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

• batch_resizeA
  3.7/5.0
  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 all URLs are returned at once, but lacks details on performance, error handling, or expected output structure. Minimal behavioral context.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. No redundant words, every part adds value.

  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?

  No output schema; description mentions 'returns all URLs at once' but lacks structure or order. For a batch tool with 4 parameters, more details on return format or behavior would improve completeness.

  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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds overall batch context but does not enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

  The description clearly states the tool generates Cloudinary transformation URLs for an entire platform package (e.g., 'GDN Essential'), specifying the action, resource, and scope. It distingues from siblings like 'generate_transform_url' which likely handles single URLs.

  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 batch URL generation per package, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'generate_transform_url' for single URLs). No exclusions or explicit context.

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

• generate_transform_urlA
  3.8/5.0
  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 states 'Generate a Cloudinary transformation URL', implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency. Minimal but not misleading.

  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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Despite the tool having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format (a URL string), provide examples, or mention error handling. Essential context for correct invocation is missing.

  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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool generates a Cloudinary transformation URL with specific parameters, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool resize_for_platform by noting custom transforms. Verb 'Generate' and resource 'Cloudinary transformation URL' are specific and unambiguous.

  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?

  Description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for custom transforms not covered by resize_for_platform'), providing clear context relative to a sibling. It does not mention other siblings or scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient for the primary alternative.

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

• list_packagesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description must carry full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. Lacks depth for a tool with 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, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  For a simple, no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: no mention of return format or behavioral guarantees, but acceptable.

  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 in schema, baseline is 4 per rules. Description adds nothing about parameters, but none exist, so score is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'available platform packages', with additional detail about channels. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which involve resizing, URLs, specs, and validation.

  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 implicitly indicates when to use: to list packages. No exclusions or alternatives needed as siblings are distinct. Without similar listing tools, guidance is adequate.

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

• validate_assetA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only validation (no creation or mutation), and outlines the return structure (compatible, off-size, incompatible channels). It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but this is acceptable for a non-destructive validation tool.

  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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope, the second the output. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

  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 output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (compatible, off-size with suggestions, incompatible channels). The input schema is fully documented. It could mention edge cases (e.g., missing duration for video) but is otherwise sufficient for a validation tool.

  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 context by stating the tool validates 'image or video asset' (linking to type parameter), but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., for filterCategory or duration). The description is sufficient but not enriching.

  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 uses the specific verb 'validate' and resource 'image or video asset' against '50+ advertising platform specs'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_resize and resize_for_platform, which focus on resizing, and get_platform_specs, which retrieves specs. No ambiguity.

  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 implies usage for checking asset compatibility before resizing (by mentioning 'fix suggestions'), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternative references.

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