Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• seedream_text_to_imageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, etc.). Description adds only 'quickly obtain' and 'high-quality', lacking behavioral details like cost, rate limits, or side effects. The agent may not know if generation is expensive or time-consuming.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness, but it is efficiently structured.

  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?

  Despite having many parameters and sibling tools, the description is too brief. It lacks output details, parameter constraints, and usage context, making it insufficient for complete understanding.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0% – description does not explain any parameters. The schema itself has descriptions for each property, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, offering no added meaning 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?

  The description clearly states the verb (文生图 = text-to-image) and resource (single high-quality image from text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like image_to_image or multi_image_fusion by emphasizing text input and single image output.

  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. Does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selecting between siblings.

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

• seedream_image_to_imageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates the tool modifies images (readOnlyHint false), but it does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether the original image is altered (likely a new image is generated), authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond what the annotations already imply.

  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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and capabilities. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids fluff, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

  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 complexity (many parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose but lacks details on output format, behavior for optional parameters, and how it fits with sibling tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions 'text instructions' and 'existing image' without detailing the required prompt and image parameters. Other parameters like size, watermark, etc., are not referenced, leaving the agent without guidance 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?

  The description clearly states it performs image-to-image editing based on an existing image and text instructions. It lists specific editing capabilities (style conversion, material replacement, etc.) and implicitly differentiates from siblings like text-to-image by specifying that it works on an existing image.

  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 it should be used when editing an existing image with text instructions, but it does not explicitly provide when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like seedream_text_to_image or seedream_multi_image_fusion. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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

• seedream_multi_image_fusionA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates the tool generates new images, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not elaborate on side effects, memory usage, or behavior under specific conditions like failed inputs.

  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 with an example, conveying essential information without waste. It could be slightly more structured but is well-suited for quick comprehension.

  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?

  The description explains the core functionality but omits output details (e.g., format) and prerequisites. The rich schema compensates partially, but without an output schema, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

  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 tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the nested schema provides comprehensive descriptions for each field. The description's lack of parameter info is acceptable as the schema already covers semantics.

  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 'multi-image fusion' and provides specific examples like merging clothing with models or people with landscapes, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like text-to-image or image-to-image.

  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 gives examples of when to use (e.g., outfit creation, portrait with scenery) but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

• seedream_browse_imagesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, establishing safe read-only behavior. Description adds browsing context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

  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 is highly concise and front-loaded, communicating the core purpose immediately. No wasted words or redundant information.

  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 six parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on what browsing returns (e.g., file list format) or how pagination works. While annotations cover safety, the description is minimal for full contextual completeness.

  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 descriptions cover all parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., directory, recursive, format_filter). Tool description does not add parameter meaning, but schema coverage is high, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 '浏览本地图片' (browse local images) in the working directory with specific use cases (selecting reference images or viewing generated content). It effectively distinguishes from sibling generation tools.

  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 context is implied (for selecting references or viewing outputs), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when to avoid. Siblings are different in nature, so confusion is unlikely, but still lacks explicit direction.

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

• seedream_sequential_generationA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates image generation but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). No mention of auth, rate limits, model-specific constraints, or output format. Schema provides some parameter details but description lacks behavioral context.

  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 (27 characters) that immediately states the core purpose and examples. No superfluous text; it is optimally concise and front-loaded.

  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 complexity (many parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is adequate but leaves out important context like the sequential nature, response format, and model-specific limitations. Schema compensates partially, but overall completeness is average.

  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 tool description does not explain any parameters; the input schema has full descriptions for each parameter (high coverage). Thus the description adds no value beyond what's already in the schema, justifying the baseline score 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 tool generates a set of related images (group image output) from text and optional images, with examples like comic panels and brand visuals. It distinctly differs from sibling tools (seedream_browse_images, seedream_image_to_image, etc.) by focusing on sequential generation of multiple related 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 implies the tool is for generating groups of related images but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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