Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• transcribeA
  3.7/5.0
  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 discloses use of Groq Whisper, auto-extraction of video audio, and return format. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, supported file formats, or error behavior.

  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 concise (4 lines), uses clear sections (Args, Returns), and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

  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 simple two-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. However, it lacks context on supported file extensions, maximum file size, and error handling, which would be helpful for an agent.

  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 0%, so the description compensates well: it clarifies that 'path' must be an absolute path and 'language' accepts 'auto' or ISO codes. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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?

  The description clearly specifies the verb 'transcribe' and the resource 'speech from a local audio or video file', and distinguishes itself from siblings (analyze_ad, audio_events, audio_profile) by focusing on transcription.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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

• analyze_adA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the heavy processing pipeline: 'download if a URL, sample frames at configured fps, tile them into labeled contact sheets, extract audio, transcribe.' It also describes the return format. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are evident.

  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 relatively long but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the process and parameters. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Runs the local prep pipeline' followed by specifics) but overall 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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's operation, parameter options, return format, and even hints at output structure. The agent has all needed information to invoke and process the result.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: source (local path or multiple URL types), language (auto or ISO code), with_audio (boolean to skip transcription). Defaults are included, making the semantics clear.

  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: 'Give Claude EYES + EARS on a short-form video ad.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (short-form video ad), and scope (by returning images and transcript). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe, which only provides transcription.

  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 for analyzing short-form video ads and tells the agent to 'Look at the images and read the transcript to analyze the ad.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transcribe or when not to use it (e.g., for long-form content).

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

• audio_eventsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ({top, rollup, timeline}) and explicitly notes the limitation regarding mood analysis. It also mentions YAMNet is free and local, which implies no external API calls or costs.

  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 concise with two well-structured paragraphs. The first line captures the core purpose and categories, and the second adds output format and limitation. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides solid context: input type, output structure, tool capability, and limitation. It could mention that path is required and top_k is optional with a default, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 two parameters (path, top_k) with no descriptions. The description explains the purpose of the tool but does not explain top_k's role or default value. While schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining the output structure, leaving top_k inferred but not explicit.

  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 tags audio events using YAMNet, listing specific categories (Music, Speech, instruments, genres, SFX). It explicitly differentiates from mood analysis, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like audio_profile or transcribe.

  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 clear context on when to use: for event/instrument/genre tagging on audio or video files. It explicitly states that YAMNet does not cover mood, guiding agents away from misuse. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context and sibling tools list imply differentiation.

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

• audio_profileA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it states the tool is free, local, numpy-based, lists returned data (tempo, energy curve, onset hits, loudness dynamics, brightness, music-vs-speech estimate), and explicitly notes what it does not provide (genre/mood/song-ID). No contradictions.

  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 concise, uses bullet points efficiently, front-loads the key purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains both the input (file path) and all outputs (tempo, energy curve, onset hits, etc.), along with limitations. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  The schema has one required parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying it accepts audio or video file paths, which clarifies the parameter's purpose. For a single parameter, this is adequate, though it could provide more detail on supported formats.

  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 analyzes music/energy/rhythm of audio or video files, listing specific outputs like tempo, BPM, energy curve, onset hits, etc., distinguishing it from siblings like transcribe or audio_events which focus on speech or event detection.

  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 implicitly indicates usage for music/energy analysis by listing what it returns and explicitly stating what it does not provide (no genre/mood/song-ID). It could be more explicit about when to use over alternatives, but the sibling tools have different purposes (ad analysis, audio events, transcription).

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