Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• waf_check_requestB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an alert list (or empty list) and implies it is a read-only check. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by structuring parameter details more clearly.

  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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed), the description is incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly. It lacks parameter explanations and does not cover how to structure requests. The url tip is helpful but insufficient.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only elaborates on one parameter: 'url 建议包含完整查询串'. It does not explain the meaning or expected format of method, headers, body, or cookies. The description adds little beyond the schema property names, leaving the agent to infer common HTTP semantics.

  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 action: '对 HTTP 请求做 WAF 规则检测' (perform WAF rule detection on HTTP request) and specifies the output: '返回命中的告警列表' (return list of matching alerts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (waf_reload_rules, waf_rule_stats, waf_run_self_tests) which focus on rule 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 includes a usage tip: 'url 建议包含完整查询串' (url is recommended to include full query string), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context implies it is for checking a single request, but guidance is minimal.

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

• waf_rule_statsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description mentions that compile_errors are truncated, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it lacks further info on side effects or prerequisites.

  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?

  Single sentence is front-loaded with purpose and lists key fields, no wasted words.

  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 no parameters and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and notes the truncation of compile_errors.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info; baseline for 0 params is 4.

  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 it returns statistics of currently loaded rules and lists specific fields (rules_file, compiled_rules, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waf_check_request or waf_reload_rules.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only describes what it does without context for selection.

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

• waf_run_self_testsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the action and purpose but omits details on return format, side effects (e.g., alerts, logs), or whether it alters state. Neither destructive nor read-only hint provided.

  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?

  Single sentence, efficient, and front-loaded with the verb '运行'. Every word earns its place with no 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?

  Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It could briefly indicate output (e.g., pass/fail), but remains sufficiently complete for a test tool.

  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?

  Input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4 per guidelines.

  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 runs built-in attack samples (SQLi, XSS, etc.) to verify engine detection, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like waf_check_request (single request check) and waf_reload_rules (rules reload).

  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 phrase '快速验证' implies quick testing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

• waf_reload_rulesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the reload and compile actions but lacks detail on potential side effects (e.g., whether it is safe to call mid-operation, impacts on in-flight requests). The presence of an output schema suggests return values are documented elsewhere.

  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 in Chinese, efficiently stating the action and purpose with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and to the point.

  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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers what it does, the file involved, and the reason to use it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for no parameters is 4. No additional semantics needed.

  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 action: reload the WAF rules file from disk and compile, with the specific purpose of avoiding MCP restart after rule modifications. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check, stats, self-tests) by focusing on reloading.

  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 explicitly indicates when to use: after modifying rule files. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool purposes.

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