Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_imageA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description only says 'permanently delete'—lacking details on authorization, error handling, or side effects. Minimal beyond the action itself.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core behavior.

  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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, parameter role, permanence. Lacks minor details like idempotency or error cases, but adequate.

  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 coverage is 100% with parameter description including an example. Description merely restates 'by id', adding no meaningful new information beyond the schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states it permanently deletes an image by ID, distinguishes from siblings like upload, list, get, sign, and transform. Includes HTTP method and endpoint for precision.

  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?

  Usage is implied as the destructive counterpart to other image tools, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• transform_imageA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'on-the-fly' and 'resolved via the API' but does not explicitly state side effects, whether the tool makes network calls, or any rate limits. The behavior is moderately clear.

  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 sentence with a brief instruction and a link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

  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?

  With 20 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists capabilities and constraints. The return value (URL string) is implied but not explicitly stated. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into categories (resize, crop, etc.) and highlighting the exclusive-or relationship between url and id.

  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 builds a transform URL for PixelVault images, listing many operations. It is distinct from sibling tools like upload_image or list_images.

  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 provides a key usage constraint (provide one of url or id) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as signing vs. transforming.

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

• sign_urlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses security-critical traits: the signature binds to the image, prevents replay, and returns 403 if stripped. It also mentions the optional expires_in and default. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

  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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and endpoint, then providing behavioral context. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or extraneous information.

  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?

  Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, security behavior, and expiration. It could mention the return format (the signed URL string) but this is not critical for correct invocation.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not add much. It does mention that expires_in is optional with a default of 3600 seconds, which the schema also specifies. The description adds no new semantic insight beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

  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 verb 'mint' and the resource 'time-limited signed URL for a private image', including the HTTP endpoint. This is distinct from sibling tools (upload, list, get, delete, transform), which all handle different operations on images.

  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 implies the use case (private image, time-limited access) and explains behavioral constraints (signature binding, 403 on stripping). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is sufficiently clear to differentiate.

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

• list_imagesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: pagination via page/per_page, ordering, and that the returned CDN URL supports transforms. It adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

  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 compact (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It includes a useful link, though the sentence on transforms is lengthy. No wasted words, but slightly dense.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (pagination, ordering, transforms). It does not detail return format, but that is typical for a list tool. The sibling tools and link provide additional context.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates pagination defaults (default 1, 20, max 100) already in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond referencing the transform capability.

  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 'List images' with the endpoint, ordering ('most recent first'), and pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'transform_image' by referencing it for URL building, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

  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 indicates when to use (listing images with pagination) and mentions transform_image as an alternative for URL transforms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide exclusions, but the context is clear.

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

• get_imageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes that it is a GET request, implying read-only and safe behavior. Lists the specific metadata returned. Could be more explicit about error handling or rate limits, but no annotations exist to contradict.

  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?

  Concise, front-loaded with purpose, includes examples and cross-reference to another tool and docs. No wasteful sentences.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema, but description explains all relevant return values (metadata, transforms). References alternative tool and documentation for further details. Complete for a simple get-by-id tool.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema has 100% coverage with parameter description. Description adds value by explaining the return structure and transforms, which relates to the parameter's output.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Get metadata (CDN URL, size, MIME type, dimensions) for one PixelVault image by id' with specific verb and resource. Distinct from siblings like list_images, upload_image, delete_image, sign_url, transform_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?

  Mentions alternative tool transform_image for building transform URLs, and includes a docs link for further guidance. Does not explicitly list when to use other siblings like list_images, but provides clear context.

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

• upload_imageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. Discloses file size limit (5 MB), supported formats, auto-deletion with expires_in, private visibility yielding signed URLs, and on-the-fly transforms. Could mention overwrite behavior but very transparent overall.

  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?

  Well-structured with main action first, then parameter alternatives and optional fields. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise by grouping transforms, but still efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Very complete: covers all 8 parameters, return value (CDN URL with transforms), explains transforms, mentions max size and formats, references external docs. No output schema or annotations, so description compensates fully.

  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?

  Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds significant value: explains path reads local disk to avoid base64, source_url is fetched, data is base64, visibility meaning, and expires_in auto-deletion. Provides context far beyond schema descriptions.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Upload an image to PixelVault and get an instant CDN URL' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by discussing alternative input methods and mentioning transform_image for URL transformations.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance on parameter preference: 'Prefer path' for large files to avoid base64 encoding. Mentions alternative tool transform_image for building transform URLs. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but sibling names imply distinct use cases.

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