Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_metadataB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'fetch' operation but doesn't clarify whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description mentions what the tool returns but lacks behavioral context about error handling, performance, or 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, Args, Returns) and efficiently conveys necessary information. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and each parameter explanation earns its place. Minor verbosity in the Returns section could be tightened, but overall it's appropriately sized.

  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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of parameters and return values. However, it lacks important contextual information about authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, and how it differs from sibling tools. The return format description is helpful but could be more detailed given the absence of an output schema.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It provides meaningful context about what each parameter does (e.g., 'Search radius in meters when using location or coordinates'), including examples and default values. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

  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's purpose: 'Fetch metadata about a Street View panorama.' It specifies the verb ('fetch') and resource ('metadata about a Street View panorama'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_street_view' (which likely retrieves the actual imagery rather than metadata).

  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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_street_view' or explain scenarios where metadata fetching is preferred over retrieving the actual Street View image. The parameter descriptions imply usage contexts but don't offer explicit when-to-use guidance.

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

• open_image_locallyB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens files in the default application (implying a system-level action) and raises errors for non-existent files, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, platform-specific behavior, or what 'success' entails beyond a status message.

  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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args/Returns/Raises sections. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the 'Dict' return type could be more specific. Every sentence adds value, but the structure is slightly verbose for a single-parameter tool.

  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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and error case adequately. However, it lacks context about the output directory (where files are saved) and doesn't explain the return value format beyond 'Dict', leaving gaps for the agent to understand the full workflow.

  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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by explaining the 'filename' parameter's purpose ('The filename of the image to open') and constraint ('must exist in output directory'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the output directory location or file format expectations.

  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 verb ('Open') and resource ('saved Street View image') with specific context ('in the default application'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_street_view' (which likely fetches images) by focusing on opening existing files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_html_page' or 'get_metadata'.

  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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the file must already exist from another operation) or compare with sibling tools like 'get_street_view' for obtaining images. The only implicit context is the file existence requirement.

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

• get_street_viewA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it saves to a file, requires a unique filename, and raises a ValueError for duplicates. It also hints at search functionality with 'radius' and 'source' parameters, though it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs.

  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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, organized parameter list, and return/error sections. It's appropriately sized for a 10-parameter tool, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'degrees' for heading/pitch).

  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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, parameters, returns, and errors. However, it lacks details on output format beyond 'Image' and doesn't address potential network or API limitations.

  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?

  Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 10 parameters, including examples, constraints (e.g., '0-360' for heading), and defaults where applicable, adding significant value 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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch', 'save to file') and resources ('Street View image'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_metadata' or 'open_image_locally' by emphasizing image retrieval and file saving.

  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 through parameter explanations (e.g., location vs. lat_lng vs. pano_id) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_metadata' or 'open_image_locally'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• create_html_pageA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It explains what gets created (complete HTML document with specific structure), includes important constraints (filename validation, path requirements for images), and describes error conditions (ValueError for existing/invalid filenames). It also shows the complete boilerplate that will be automatically added.

  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 comprehensive but could be more front-loaded. While all information is valuable, the detailed example and boilerplate sections make it quite lengthy. The core information is presented early, but the overall structure includes multiple sections that could potentially be streamlined.

  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?

  For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, constraints, examples, and even shows the exact HTML structure that will be generated. The return value is clearly explained ('Dict: A status message indicating success or failure'), and error conditions are documented.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. It clarifies that html_elements should be 'just the body content, no need for HTML structure,' specifies filename format 'without directory path,' and explains the title parameter's role. The example usage provides concrete parameter values and formatting guidance.

  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: 'Create an HTML page specifically for displaying Street View images with descriptive text.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('HTML page'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Street View image compilation rather than metadata retrieval or image viewing.

  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 for when to use this tool: for compiling multiple Street View images into a viewable HTML document for virtual tours or showcases. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the specific use case is well-defined.

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