Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_videoA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it works with local paths and HTTP(S) URLs and allows specifying frame count and profile, but does not disclose output structure or any limitations. Beyond annotations, it adds moderate context, so a 3 is appropriate.

  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, compact sentence that clearly conveys the core function and key optional parameters. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

  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?

  The tool has good parameter documentation and a read-only annotation. The description covers the essence of the operation and its main options, but lacks explicit guidance on model profile selection or relation to sibling tools. It is adequate but not exhaustive, so a 4 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description only paraphrases 'frames' and 'profile' without adding new semantic detail, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

  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 explicitly states the tool extracts frames from local or HTTP(S) videos and performs structured understanding, with configurable frame count and model profile. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools analyze_image (images) and list_vision_models (model listing).

  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 for video analysis but does not explicitly mention when to use it over analyze_image or how to utilize list_vision_models for profile selection. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• analyze_imageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by noting support for streaming progress, remote image URLs, and multiple configurable processing modes. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool does without contradicting the annotations.

  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 two succinct sentences. The first states the core function and input types; the second summarizes user-controlled options and capabilities. No unnecessary details or repetition.

  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?

  With a rich schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, input sources, and capabilities (OCR, summarize, locate, streaming). Minor omissions like error handling or network prerequisites are not critical given the structured metadata.

  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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all six parameters. The description mentions intent, processing mode, and reasoning level, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it falls at the baseline.

  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 analyzes images from local paths, file URLs, or HTTP(S) URLs, and lists distinct capabilities like OCR, summarization, and subject localization. This differentiates it from sibling tools analyze_video and list_vision_models.

  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 on the tool's scope (image analysis from various sources) and mentions the main intents (OCR, summarize, locate). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using analyze_video for videos, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

• list_vision_modelsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail: it does not return API keys. This goes beyond the annotation by informing the agent about a privacy safeguard, but otherwise does not disclose other behaviors like output format details (though output schema exists).

  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?

  A single, concise sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and key output scope while mentioning the API key exclusion. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

  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 simple, parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and a critical constraint (no API key). It is complete for the agent to invoke correctly without further documentation.

  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 schema is already complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-specific meaning since there are none. Baseline 4 applies due to no 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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (configured vision model profiles plus current default), distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze images/videos. It also adds a security-relevant detail (does not return API key), making the purpose unmistakable.

  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 use when you need to see available vision model profiles, and the sibling names (analyze_image, analyze_video) make the distinction obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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