Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• doc_assistantC
  2.6/5.0
  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. The description hints at providing 'context' for video application creation, but it doesn't specify what this entails—whether it's informational, instructional, or involves data retrieval. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, concise sentence: 'Context for creating video applications using VideoDB.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured if it included clearer purpose or usage hints, but as-is, it's appropriately sized for its limited content.

  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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain parameters or return values. However, the description is vague about the tool's purpose and behavior, and with no annotations, it leaves gaps in understanding what 'context' means and how it aids in video application creation. It's minimally adequate but lacks depth for a tool that might involve complex operations.

  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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given for zero-parameter tools, as there's no semantic gap to fill beyond what the schema already indicates.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Context for creating video applications using VideoDB' is vague about what the tool actually does. It mentions 'context' and 'creating video applications' but doesn't specify a clear action or resource. It's not a tautology since it adds some information beyond the name 'doc_assistant', but it fails to distinguish what specific function this tool performs compared to its siblings like 'code_assistant' or 'play_video'.

  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 mentions 'creating video applications' but doesn't clarify if this is for setup, documentation, or another purpose, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'code_assistant' or 'play_video' for comparison. There's no explicit or implied context for usage decisions.

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

• call_directorC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions using 'defaults and contextual information if explicit parameters are not provided' and session_id continuity, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'orchestrates' entails operationally. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool with such broad capabilities.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with a long bulleted list of examples that could be summarized. It front-loads core purpose but buries important session_id instructions at the end. Many sentences (e.g., detailed task examples) don't earn their place for tool selection, making it inefficient for an AI agent.

  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 (broad multimedia orchestration), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description is incomplete. It lists capabilities but lacks operational context, parameter guidance, and behavioral transparency needed for effective tool use, leaving major gaps despite the output schema.

  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%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It vaguely references 'queries' and 'contextual defaults,' but doesn't explain the three parameters (agents, session_id, text_message) or their relationships. The IMPORTANT notes about session_id provide some usage context but not parameter meaning. With 3 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, this is a significant gap.

  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 that the tool 'orchestrates specialized agents within the VideoDB server' to 'handle multimedia and video-related queries' through delegation. It specifies the verb (orchestrate/delegate) and resource (VideoDB agents), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like code_assistant or doc_assistant beyond the multimedia focus.

  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 by stating clients should send 'queries that Director can interpret clearly' and 'aligned with Director's capabilities,' with examples of supported tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like play_video, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond query clarity.

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

• play_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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Play') but doesn't explain what 'Play' entails—e.g., does it open a player, stream in background, require specific permissions, or have rate limits? This leaves key behavioral traits undefined.

  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 function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly with zero waste.

  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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks completeness for a tool that performs an action like 'Play'—missing behavioral context and parameter details leaves gaps.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'stream_link' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title—no details on format, valid URLs, or examples. This fails to adequately clarify the parameter's semantics.

  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 ('Play') and the resource ('video of the given stream link'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'call_director' or 'doc_assistant', which appear unrelated, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.

  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, such as whether it's for streaming specific formats or in certain contexts. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

• code_assistantB
  3.4/5.0
  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. It mentions the tool 'will give you data' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what type of data (e.g., read-only, generated code), potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is insufficient 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose, but the second sentence is repetitive ('always call this tool') and could be more structured. It's concise but lacks optimal efficiency in phrasing.

  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 has no parameters, annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and usage but lacks details on what data is provided, behavioral context, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full scope.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool provides 'data related to VideoDB SDK' and is for 'code related to videos, youtube videos or VideoDB specifically', which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what specific data or actions it provides (e.g., examples, documentation, code snippets) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'doc_assistant' or 'play_video'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Whenever user wants to write code related to videos, youtube videos or VideoDB specifically, always call this tool.' This provides clear, directive guidance on usage context, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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