Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_iiif_manifestC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch and validate,' implying network I/O and validation logic, but doesn't specify error handling, timeout behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what validation entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external URLs.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 (fetching and validating external resources) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like network reliability, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format constraints or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb ('fetch and validate') and resource ('IIIF manifest from a URL'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_iiif_image' or 'fetch_iiif_image_region', which likely handle different IIIF resources.

  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 its siblings (e.g., for manifests vs. images/regions) or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.

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

• fetch_iiif_image_regionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about scaling to 1M pixels and the purpose for higher detail, but it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Each sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and scaling behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which could hinder agent effectiveness in some scenarios.

  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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning percentage coordinates and the scaling effect, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'fetch') and resources ('specific region of a IIIF image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by specifying percentage coordinates and scaling to 1M pixels. It explicitly mentions the use case for higher detail in image description and analysis.

  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 this tool ('to fetch regions of interest at higher detail for more accurate image description and analysis'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like the sibling 'fetch_iiif_image' tool for full images.

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

• fetch_iiif_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's process ('fetching info.json and returning the image data scaled to roughly 1M pixels total area'), which adds valuable context about scaling behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid URIs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, process, and scaling behavior. Every element earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is appropriately front-loaded.

  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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and its scaling behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return format (image data type, structure) or error handling, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The description is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (base URI format, exclusion of /info.json). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

  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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('IIIF image'), and scope ('from a base URI'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on full image retrieval rather than region extraction (fetch_iiif_image_region) or manifest fetching (fetch_iiif_manifest). The description goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the operational details.

  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 about when to use this tool ('Retrieve a IIIF image from a base URI') and implicitly distinguishes from fetch_iiif_image_region (which handles regions) and fetch_iiif_manifest (which handles manifests). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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