Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_image_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read-only operation ('get information'), it doesn't specify whether this requires file system access, what happens with invalid paths, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

  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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the main functionality, though the Chinese-to-English translation creates minor redundancy in the parameter documentation.

  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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what parameter it requires. However, it lacks details about return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints that would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

  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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'image_path' and its purpose ('图片文件路径' meaning 'image file path'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema gap for this single-parameter tool.

  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: '获取指定路径图片的信息（尺寸、格式等）' translates to 'Get information about the specified image path (dimensions, format, etc.)'. This provides a specific verb ('get information') and resource ('image'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pick_image'.

  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 like 'pick_image' or 'collect_feedback'. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

• pick_imageB
  3.3/5.0
  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 describes the tool's behavior as popping up a dialog for user interaction, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a blocking operation, what happens on user cancellation, error handling, or UI constraints (e.g., supported image formats). For a user-interactive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that clearly state the tool's function and user options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to understand.

  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 (user-interactive dialog) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image data, file path, or error), how it handles edge cases, or any dependencies. For a tool with no structured data to supplement, this leaves key contextual gaps.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

  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: '弹出图片选择对话框，让用户选择图片文件或从剪贴板粘贴图片' (pop up an image selection dialog to let users choose image files or paste from clipboard). It specifies the action (pop up dialog) and resource (image files/clipboard images), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_image_info' or 'collect_feedback'.

  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 mentioning '用户可以选择本地图片文件，或者先截图到剪贴板然后粘贴' (users can choose local image files or first screenshot to clipboard then paste), suggesting when to use it for image input. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_image_info' (which might retrieve image metadata) or 'collect_feedback' (which might involve user input beyond images).

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

• collect_feedbackA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the interactive dialog behavior with timeout functionality and mentions that feedback may include text and images. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when timeout occurs.

  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 with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the purpose statement before the bilingual formatting.

  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 an interactive feedback collection tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks details about the interactive dialog implementation, error handling, or what specific format the returned feedback list contains. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful semantic context for both parameters: work_summary is explained as 'AI完成的工作内容汇报' (AI's work completion report) and timeout_seconds as '对话框超时时间' (dialog timeout time) with default value context. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 '收集用户反馈的交互式工具' (collect user feedback interactive tool) and specifies that AI can report completed work while users can provide text and/or image feedback. This is a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_image_info or pick_image.

  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 ('AI可以汇报完成的工作内容' - AI can report completed work content) and mentions the interactive dialog nature, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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