Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_videoC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool immediately returns a persistent task ID, implying asynchronous processing, but it does not disclose validation behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or what happens after submission. This is insufficient for a tool that kick-starts a multi-step workflow.

  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 concise sentence that immediately states the action (submit a video sharing link) and the key output (persistent task ID). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and is part of an async workflow with sibling tools. The description only covers the basic submission action and does not explain parameter semantics, the async flow, or how the returned task ID connects to the sibling tools. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has three parameters (url, profile, provider) with zero description coverage. The description only paraphrases url as 'video sharing link' and says nothing about profile or provider, leaving their meaning and acceptable values completely unexplained. This is a critical gap for a tool with low schema coverage.

  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 submits a video sharing link and returns a persistent task ID, distinguishing it from the sibling status/result retrieval tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives within the description, so it's slightly less clear than a fully self-contained purpose statement.

  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 the siblings (get_analysis_status, get_analysis_result) or the typical async workflow (submit, then poll status, then fetch result). The mention of a persistent task ID hints at async usage, but no explicit context is given.

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

• get_analysis_statusC
  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. It discloses the return content (status and structured errors) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens for non-existent jobs, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The query nature implies read-only but is not explicit.

  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, front-loaded sentence that packs essential information without wasted words. It clearly states the action and the object, making it appropriately sized for a simple status-query tool.

  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 having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description lacks crucial contextual cues: when to use it, what `job_id` refers to, and any prerequisites. Given the tool's minimal schema, the description is incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description does not mention the `job_id` parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what the parameter means or how to obtain it, but it does not. The only implicit connection is that a 'video analysis task' requires an ID, which is insufficient.

  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 current status and structured errors of a video analysis task, using a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('视频分析任务'). This distinguishes it from siblings like `analyze_video` (which starts analysis) and `get_analysis_result` (which retrieves results).

  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. The description does not mention that it should be called after initiating an analysis or that it is for monitoring progress. Sibling tool names offer context but are not referenced in the description.

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

• get_analysis_resultA
  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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a result directory and exactly four standard file paths, and that it applies to completed tasks. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the task is incomplete) or any side effects, though the read-only nature is implied by '获取'.

  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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and key result. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema information or filler.

  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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), so the description is minimally viable. However, it misses guidance on the relationship with sibling tools, such as using get_analysis_status to confirm completion before calling this, and it omits error context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter job_id, but it does not explain the parameter's format, source, or how to obtain it. The phrase 'completed task' hints that job_id should be a completed analysis job's ID, but that is minimal compensation.

  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 ('获取') and resource ('已完成任务的结果目录和四个标准文件路径'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_analysis_status (which reports status) and analyze_video (which starts analysis). The scope is precise: it returns paths for a completed task.

  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?

  It states the tool is for completed tasks, which implies it should be used after task completion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say to check status via get_analysis_status first. No clear when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided.

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