Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_videoC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion function but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's a read/write operation, if it modifies source files, what happens on failure, performance characteristics, or output location behavior. The description doesn't compensate for the missing annotations.

  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 - a single sentence that efficiently states the core function and lists supported formats. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a conversion 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?

  For a complex video conversion tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, performance implications, or provide usage context. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

  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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing format examples, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '将视频文件转换为指定格式' (convert video files to specified format). It specifies the action (convert) and resource (video files), and lists supported formats. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_convert or get_video_info, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 batch_convert (for multiple files) or get_video_info (for metadata extraction). It mentions supported formats but doesn't specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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

• get_video_infoC
  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. While it indicates this is an information retrieval operation ('获取' meaning 'get'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires file system access permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist or is inaccessible, whether there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a file operation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the types of information it retrieves. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it could potentially benefit from more context about usage or behavior, what's present is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 but minimal coverage. It clearly states what information the tool retrieves, which is helpful context given the lack of output schema. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it should ideally provide more guidance about when to use this versus alternatives and address behavioral aspects like error conditions or access requirements.

  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 single parameter 'filePath' clearly documented as '视频文件的完整路径' (complete path to the video file). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it need to since schema coverage is complete. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  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 retrieving detailed information about video files, specifying the types of information included (format, resolution, duration, codec, bitrate). It uses specific verbs ('获取' meaning 'get/retrieve') and identifies the resource ('视频文件' meaning 'video file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_convert or convert_video, which appear to be transformation tools rather than information retrieval tools.

  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. While the purpose suggests it's for retrieving metadata rather than converting videos (which the sibling tools appear to do), there's no explicit comparison or context about when this tool is appropriate versus when other tools might be needed. The description simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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

• batch_convertB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions batch processing and efficiency but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a long-running operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, if files are modified in-place, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

  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 concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds context about batch efficiency. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of purpose vs benefits.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, side effects, or what constitutes successful completion. The agent would need to guess about important operational details.

  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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '指定格式' (specified format) which aligns with 'outputFormat' but provides no additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '批量转换多个视频文件为指定格式' (batch convert multiple video files to specified format). It specifies the verb (convert), resource (video files), and scope (multiple files). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'convert_video' - it mentions batch processing but doesn't clarify if 'convert_video' is for single files.

  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: '支持同时处理多个文件，提高转换效率' (supports processing multiple files simultaneously, improving conversion efficiency). This suggests using this tool for batch operations rather than single files, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs 'convert_video' or mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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