Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• estimate_video_jobC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it performs estimation without contacting RunPod, but omits details like whether it's read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief to convey necessary information. It earns its place but lacks substance.

  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 two parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema (unseen), and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand inputs or behavior. It is incomplete.

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

  Parameters1/5

  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 parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention asset_id or duration_sec at all, leaving their roles completely unclear.

  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 function: estimating runtime and compute cost for a video job, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_video_models or get_video_job by specifying the estimation nature and the 'without contacting RunPod' aspect.

  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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use. The sibling tools are listed but not discussed.

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

• list_uploaded_video_inputsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list recent images', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as sorting order, what 'recent' means, or whether there are any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a listing tool.

  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 sentence, very concise. It is front-loaded with the verb. While succinct, it could be improved by adding a brief note about the parameter or return value without losing conciseness.

  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 low complexity (1 optional param, list operation) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention what the output contains (even though an output schema exists) nor the effect of the limit parameter. An agent would need to inspect the output schema to understand the return structure, but the description should provide at least a hint.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The only parameter is 'limit' with a default value, but the description does not explain its meaning or usage. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some extent, but no additional context is provided.

  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 action ('list') and the resource ('recent images uploaded through upload_video_input'), distinguishing from sibling tools that deal with models, estimates, and jobs. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the tool name says 'video_inputs' while the description says 'images', which could cause confusion.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_video_models). The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• list_video_modelsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The tool has no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. It is presumably a safe read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

  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 extremely short and front-loaded, fitting in a single sentence. While concise, it borders on too minimal, but it still effectively communicates the core action.

  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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to provide context about the relationship to sibling tools or what the output represents, leaving room for improvement.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. The schema covers all parameters, meeting the baseline score of 4 as specified.

  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 lists the 'single enabled HunyuanVideo generation profile', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_uploaded_video_inputs' and 'estimate_video_job'. However, it does not explain what a 'generation profile' is, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or context for invocation.

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

• get_video_jobA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Description indicates a read-only operation ('Return'). No annotations provided, but the description is minimally transparent. Lacks details on rate limits or permissions, which are reasonable for a simple getter.

  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?

  One short sentence that directly states purpose. No wasted words, but no structural elements (e.g., sections). Acceptable for a simple tool.

  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 one required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. Does not elaborate on return format or errors, but the output schema presumably handles that.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra meaning to the 'job_id' parameter beyond its name and type. It does not explain format, origin, or constraints of the job 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?

  Description clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'Hunyuan job', specifying the output 'current state and metadata'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_video_models or estimate_video_job.

  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: retrieve job status by job_id. However, no explicit guidance when to use vs alternatives, such as when a specific job's details are needed after submission.

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