Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• image_to_video_build_promptA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool 'builds' a prompt. It does not mention the output format, whether the tool generates a string, or how it processes inputs. This minimal disclosure adds little beyond the tool name, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

  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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the output, and the key input categories. Every word contributes meaningful information with no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It clarifies the tool's purpose but does not explain what the generated prompt looks like or how parameters are combined. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 3 is appropriate.

  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 provides 100% descriptive coverage for all 8 parameters, meeting the baseline. The description groups parameters into categories (e.g., 'constraints' corresponds to 'avoid'), but it does not introduce new semantic meaning or explain parameter interactions beyond what the schema already offers.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Build' and identifies the resource as a 'production-ready image-to-video prompt', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like image_to_video_plan or image_to_video_get_started. It explicitly lists the key input categories (subject, motion, environment, camera, lighting, timing, constraints), making the tool's function unambiguous.

  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 implies this tool is for constructing the final prompt from given components, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of planning or getting started. It provides clear context (building a production-ready prompt) but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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

• image_to_video_planA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (generating a shot plan) and mentions two specific content elements (motion hierarchy, iteration checks), offering some transparency. However, it does not clarify how the plan is presented, whether any state is changed, or what 'iteration checks' entail exactly.

  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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and key deliverables without extraneous words. It earns its place by conveying purpose and essential output features efficiently.

  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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is adequate but minimal. It names the output components but does not explain how the plan relates to subsequent steps (e.g., building a prompt), nor does it elaborate on the input parameters or expected plan structure. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward planning tool but leaves gaps in workflow integration.

  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 description coverage is 60%, so the schema already documents the required parameters 'goal' and 'image_description,' plus the optional 'end_frame_description.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and parameters like aspect_ratio and duration_seconds lack narrative explanations. The mention of 'motion hierarchy' and 'iteration checks' relates to output, not parameters.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies a clear deliverable: 'concise shot plan for turning a still image into a short video.' It further differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'motion hierarchy and iteration checks,' which are planning-specific outputs distinct from building a prompt or getting started.

  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 a planning workflow ('Create a concise shot plan') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools image_to_video_build_prompt or image_to_video_get_started. There are no exclusions or alternative guidance, making it only implicitly contextually relevant.

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

• image_to_video_get_startedA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the output (URL and checklist) but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether the function is non-destructive, requires auth, or how locale affects output. However, it is not misleading.

  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?

  One sentence, straightforward, no fluff.

  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 tool is simple with one optional param, but the description doesn't explain what the checklist contains or how the URL varies. Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format. Given the tool's intended first-step purpose, it's 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?

  The schema has one parameter (locale) with enum and default but zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the locale parameter at all, so the agent gets no semantic guidance about its purpose or effect.

  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 function with the specific verb 'return' and identifies the resource (Image to Video AI workspace URL) plus an additional output (preflight checklist). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the 'getting started' step.

  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 implies usage context ('get started') but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like build_prompt or plan. It doesn't provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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