Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compress-imageC
  2.7/5.0
  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. It states the action ('compress image') but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether the original file is modified or replaced, if a new file is created, error handling, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 extremely concise with just two characters ('压缩图片'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple tool, this brevity is efficient, though it may sacrifice clarity. Every element earns its place by directly stating the core function.

  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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without guesswork.

  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 clear descriptions for fileName, outputName, and quality parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents 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 '压缩图片' (compress image) states the basic verb and resource but is vague about scope and implementation details. It doesn't specify what type of compression (e.g., lossy/lossless), supported formats, or how it differs from sibling tools like count-desktop-images and list-desktop-images. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.

  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 or any prerequisites. The description doesn't mention context for usage, such as when compression is needed or what happens to the original file. Without annotations or explicit instructions, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• count-desktop-imagesB
  3.2/5.0
  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 only states what the tool does (counts images) but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it's read-only, if it accesses system files, potential errors, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational characteristics.

  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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a counting tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, though it doesn't add extra value beyond the 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 with a specific verb ('统计' meaning 'count') and resource ('桌面上的图片文件' meaning 'desktop image files'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list-desktop-images', which likely lists files rather than counting them, so it misses the highest clarity tier.

  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 like 'list-desktop-images' or 'compress-image'. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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

• list-desktop-imagesB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It states the tool retrieves a list of image file names, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, how it handles errors, what formats are supported, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. For a basic read operation, this might suffice, but it could benefit from more completeness regarding how the list is structured or returned.

  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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and baseline for 0 parameters is 4. It adds no extra parameter semantics, but that's acceptable here.

  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 ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'retrieve') and resource ('桌面上的图片文件名称列表' meaning 'list of image file names on the desktop'). It's specific about what it returns (file names, not file contents or metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'count-desktop-images' which might return a count rather than a list.

  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 'compress-image' (for processing) or 'count-desktop-images' (for counting), nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors for usage.

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