Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• batch_screenshotC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (batch screenshot capture) but doesn't describe what happens: whether files are saved to disk, if the operation is resource-intensive, potential errors, or output format. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted words.

  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 (11 parameters, batch file operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like file output location, error handling, or performance implications, leaving the agent with insufficient 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., descriptions for 'interval,' 'format,' 'outputDir'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying time-based batch processing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '按固定时间间隔批量截取视频画面' translates to 'batch capture video screenshots at fixed time intervals.' This specifies the verb (capture screenshots), resource (video), and scope (batch at intervals). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' (which might capture a single screenshot).

  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 'take_screenshot' or 'get_video_info.' It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

• take_screenshotC
  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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether it modifies the original video file, what happens if the timestamp is invalid, error handling, performance characteristics, or what the output looks like (just that it's a single frame). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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 directly states the core function. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes, what the output contains, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool that presumably creates files and processes video, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.

  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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '指定时间点' (specified time point) which aligns with the timestamp parameter, but this is already covered in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '截取视频单帧画面' (capture a single frame from a video). It specifies the verb (截取/capture) and resource (视频单帧画面/video single frame). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_screenshot (which presumably captures multiple frames) or get_video_info (which retrieves metadata rather than capturing frames).

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like batch_screenshot for multiple frames, get_video_info for metadata, or validate_video for validation. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios beyond the basic function.

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

• validate_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. While '验证' (validate) implies a read-only check, the description doesn't specify what '有效且支持处理' (valid and supports processing) means operationally - whether it checks format compatibility, file integrity, encoding support, or other criteria. No information about error conditions, performance characteristics, or output format is provided.

  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 Chinese sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. While appropriately concise, it could be slightly more structured by separating the validation purpose from the criteria being checked, but it's well within acceptable bounds for a simple 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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes '有效且支持处理' (valid and supports processing), what validation criteria are applied, what the output looks like (success/failure, detailed diagnostics), or how this differs from simply checking file existence. The agent lacks critical context 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?

  The schema has 100% description coverage with 'videoPath' clearly documented as '视频文件路径' (video file path). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as path format requirements or supported video locations. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 '验证视频文件是否有效且支持处理' (validate video file for validity and processing support), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this validation tool from its siblings like 'get_video_info' which might provide similar information, keeping it from 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' which might also provide validation-related information. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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

• get_video_infoB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (duration, resolution, frame rate) but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the video file doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose with relevant examples. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes no unnecessary information, making it highly 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values beyond the examples provided, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent 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 (the 'videoPath' parameter is documented as '视频文件路径' - video file path), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

  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: '获取视频文件的详细信息，包括时长、分辨率、帧率等' (Get detailed information about video files, including duration, resolution, frame rate, etc.). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('视频文件' - video files) with examples of information returned. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_video' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'validate_video' (which might check video validity rather than retrieve metadata) or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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