Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• grade_homeworkB
  3.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions automatic question recognition and scoring/analysis output, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like accuracy limitations, processing time, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For an AI-powered grading tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

  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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates core functionality. The emoji adds visual emphasis but doesn't detract from clarity. Every element serves a purpose, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating input methods from core functionality.

  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 (AI-powered image analysis for grading), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does but lacks details about output format, accuracy, limitations, and error conditions. It's minimally viable but leaves important contextual gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.

  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 fully documents both parameters (imageData and imageUrl) including their formats and mutual exclusivity. The description mentions '支持Base64和URL两种方式' (supports Base64 and URL two methods) which aligns with but doesn't add meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score.

  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 ('智能批改' - intelligent grading) and resources ('学生作业图片' - student homework images), including the key functionality of automatic question recognition and providing scores/analysis. It distinguishes itself by specifying support for both Base64 and URL input methods.

  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 through '智能批改学生作业图片' (intelligent grading of student homework images) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no sibling tools mentioned, there's no differentiation guidance, though the tool's specialized purpose is reasonably clear from the description alone.

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