Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_task_statusC
  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 full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

  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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that queries task status. It doesn't explain what status information is returned (e.g., progress percentage, completion state, error messages), making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full context of use.

  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 100% with the single parameter 'task_id' well-documented as '任务ID' (task ID). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, source of task_id, or validation rules), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 '查询视频增强任务状态' clearly states the purpose as querying video enhancement task status, which is a specific verb (query) + resource (video enhancement task status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_task' (creation) and 'enhance_video_sync' (synchronous enhancement), but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the different action verbs.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id from create_task), when-not scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like checking if enhance_video_sync might provide status differently.

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

• enhance_video_syncB
  3.4/5.0
  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 key behavioral traits: the tool is synchronous/blocking ('阻塞等待完成'), supports two upload methods, and includes polling and timeout parameters. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'enhance' entails (e.g., quality improvement, format conversion).

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then listing upload methods and parameters. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter list could be more integrated into the flow rather than bullet-pointed.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the blocking behavior and upload methods, but lacks details on the enhancement process, output format (e.g., what is returned after completion), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex behavior, more context would be helpful.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by briefly mentioning the two upload methods, but doesn't provide additional semantics, constraints, or examples. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: '同步增强视频（阻塞等待完成）' which translates to 'enhance video synchronously (blocking wait for completion)'. It specifies the action (enhance video) and the blocking behavior, but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_task or get_task_status, which appear to be related to task management.

  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 detailing two upload methods (URL and local), which suggests when to use each type. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (create_task, get_task_status), such as for asynchronous vs. synchronous processing, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• create_taskA
  3.8/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the asynchronous nature and the two upload methods (URL and local with base64 conversion), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (since there's no output schema).

  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 purpose statement followed by bullet points explaining upload methods and parameters. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated rather than listed separately. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal 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's complexity (asynchronous operation with multiple upload methods), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the core functionality and parameters well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, authentication, and how to monitor the asynchronous task (using the 'get_task_status' sibling).

  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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by briefly mentioning the two upload methods that correspond to the 'type' parameter values, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('创建视频增强任务' - create video enhancement task) and resource ('视频增强任务' - video enhancement task), specifying it's asynchronous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'enhance_video_sync' by explicitly mentioning the asynchronous nature, which is crucial for differentiation.

  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 about when to use this tool (for asynchronous video enhancement) and implicitly distinguishes it from 'enhance_video_sync' (which would be synchronous). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the 'get_task_status' sibling for checking task completion, which would be helpful for complete guidance.

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