Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_imageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions '基于视觉模型' (vision model based) but does not elaborate on output format, limitations, or side effects. It also references '输入约定同 analyze_image' without specifying those conventions, leaving behavior opaque. Some context is given but insufficient for a fully transparent description.

  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 very concise: two sentences, no fluff, directly states purpose and when to call. It is well-structured with a clear trigger and a reference for input conventions. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it is efficient.

  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 fails to provide comprehensive guidance: no exclusions, no detail on output, no mention of what happens for invalid input, and no standalone parameter explanation. The context signals show no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, so the description must compensate but only partially does by reusing analyze_image's conventions. For a simple tool this may be acceptable, but for an AI agent making decisions, it's insufficient.

  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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description mentions '输入约定同 analyze_image' which implies conventions are shared, but since analyze_image's conventions are not spelled out here, the agent must look elsewhere. The description lists only 'detail' and 'images' names without explanation. This adds minimal clarity, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter docs.

  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 action ('详细描述图片内容' = describe image content in detail) and specifically mentions the vision model basis. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the phrasing '当用户要求...' distinguishes it from extract_text_from_image which focuses on text extraction. Purpose is clear and specific.

  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 explicit trigger conditions ('当用户要求描述/介绍一下这张图、看到什么时调用') and points to analyze_image for input conventionsastra. However, it does not mention exclusions or when to prefer extract_text_from_image over this tool, so some guidance is missing.

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

• analyze_imageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  无注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任。仅提到'基于视觉模型'暗示外部调用，但未说明网络依赖、图片大小限制、失败处理或隐私影响等关键行为。描述只覆盖输入格式，行为细节缺失。

  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?

  描述采用分节结构（触发条件+参数解释），信息密集且无冗余。中文表述流畅，但长度稍长，每句均有价值，整体简洁。

  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?

  工具中等复杂，有输出schema故无需描述返回值。描述覆盖了参数和触发场景，但未提及错误处理或资源限制等潜在注意事项，在有无注解情况下仍可更完整。

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  schema覆盖率为0%，描述完全弥补了参数含义：详细列出images的四种合法格式（路径、URL、data URI、纯base64），解释prompt用途，并明确detail为采样精细度且枚举值low/high/auto。超越schema预期。

  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?

  描述明确说明工具是'分析图片内容并回答你的问题'，使用具体动词和资源。但未明确区分与兄弟工具describe_image、extract_text_from_image的边界，可能混淆，因此扣一分。

  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?

  描述提供了明确的触发条件（用户要求看图片/描述图片等或出现图片路径/URL/base64），并指示'主动调用'。但未说明何时不使用（如仅需纯描述时是否应选describe_image），不过整体指引清晰。

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

• extract_text_from_imageA
  3.9/5.0
  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 adds that it's 'OCR based on vision model', which gives some insight into how it works. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, error behavior, or whether images are stored, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified. The read-only nature mitigates the gap, but the description is thin.

  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 extremely concise, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted wording. The reference to analyze_image is efficient, though it creates a dependency.

  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?

  An output schema is present, so return values are covered externally. The description covers purpose and usage trigger. The only gap is that it relies on the sibling tool for input conventions, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling context, it is adequately complete for an OCR tool.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'input conventions same as analyze_image' without explaining what images or detail mean in practice. This is a pointer to sibling information rather than an explanation, failing to provide direct parameter semantics for the agent.

  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 extracts text from images via OCR with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning when to use it for 'recognize/extract text in images, screenshots', which sets it apart from analyze_image and describe_image.

  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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call when user asks to recognize/extract text in images'. It also references input conventions from analyze_image, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, though the sibling distinction is implicit.

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