Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• download_imageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return value (local file path) but does not disclose overwrite behavior, directory creation, authentication requirements, error handling for invalid URLs, or whether the operation is synchronous. These gaps are significant for a mutation-like 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 a single, clear sentence with a secondary sentence about the return value. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded. Highly concise.

  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 low complexity (3 simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and return value. However, it omits important details like default behavior for filename conflicts, directory creation, error outcomes, and supported file formats. It is adequate but could be more thorough to avoid ambiguity.

  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 documentation coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no further explanation beyond stating the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains each parameter adequately.

  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?

  Description clearly states the action ('Download'), the resource ('an image from a URL'), and the result ('Returns the local file path'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (image_search, web_search) which are search-oriented, not download-oriented.

  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 when needing to save an image locally from a given URL. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of siblings being distinct search tools provides indirect guidance, but explicit usage conditions are absent.

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

• image_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description discloses the return format but lacks details on behavior: no info on rate limits, safety (likely read-only), pagination, or authentication. It relies on the service name (DuckDuckGo) for implicit trust, but more explicit transparency would help.

  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?

  Two concise sentences front-load the primary action and return value. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

  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 4 parameters (including enums) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention filters like size or type, though the schema covers them. The agent may need to inspect the schema to understand filtering capabilities, making the description incomplete for quick decision-making.

  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 baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely confirming the tool's purpose. No additional context for the enums or the max_results default.

  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 states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'images using DuckDuckGo', clearly differentiating from sibling tools (e.g., web_search for general web, download_image for downloading). It also specifies the return type: a list with URLs, titles, and sources.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., web_search). While the name and description imply image-specific search, it doesn't exclude cases where general web search might be better, nor does it mention limitations.

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

• web_searchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool uses DuckDuckGo and returns a list of results, but does not mention rate limits, read-only nature, or other limitations. The behavioral information is adequate but not thorough.

  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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and result, and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and output.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity, high schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality and return value. It could mention that it's a web search (not image-specific) for extra clarity, but it is nearly complete.

  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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the search engine used (DuckDuckGo) and return format, but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

  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 'Search' and the resource 'the web using DuckDuckGo', and specifies the return type (list with titles, URLs, descriptions). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like image_search and download_image.

  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 general web search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., for image searches, use image_search instead). No when-not or alternatives are provided.

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