Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_objectsC
  2.6/5.0
  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 the basic action ('列出' - list) without detailing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with storage.

  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 a single, efficient sentence ('列出COS中的对象') that directly states the purpose without waste. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, as it lacks necessary context about COS and behavioral details, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the clean structure.

  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 (interacting with object storage), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or important behavioral aspects like whether it lists recursively or includes metadata. For a tool with one parameter but significant implicit context, this is inadequate.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'prefix' fully documented in the schema ('对象键的过滤前缀，默认列出所有对象' - filter prefix for object keys, defaults to listing all objects). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info.

  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 '列出COS中的对象' (List objects in COS) states a clear verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('对象' - objects), but lacks specificity about what COS is (likely Cloud Object Storage) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_signed_url' which also deals with objects. It's vague about scope beyond basic listing.

  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 that this is for listing objects (vs. deleting with 'delete_object' or uploading with 'upload_file'), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context for filtering with the prefix parameter. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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

• delete_objectC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'delete,' which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to add crucial context such as whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 ('删除COS中的对象') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. While the parameter is well-covered by the schema, the overall description fails to compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema.

  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% description coverage, with the parameter 'object_key' clearly documented as '要删除的对象键名' (the key name of the object to delete). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 '删除COS中的对象' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (object in COS), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this destructive operation from its sibling tools (get_signed_url, list_objects, upload_file, upload_multiple), which are all read or create operations, so it misses the opportunity for explicit sibling 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing object to delete), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting buckets or other resources), or comparisons with siblings (e.g., use list_objects first to verify existence). This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate invocation.

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

• get_signed_urlC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'temporary signed URL' which implies time-limited access, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon expiration. For a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations, this is insufficient.

  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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding.

  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 generates temporary signed URLs. It doesn't explain what the signed URL can be used for, security implications, or return format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

  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 both parameters ('object_key' and 'expire_time') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

  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/obtain') and resource ('COS对象的临时签名URL' meaning 'temporary signed URL for COS object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_objects' or 'upload_file', which would require a 5.

  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. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools like 'delete_object' or 'upload_file' for comparison, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• upload_fileC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an upload operation (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens on success, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

  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 - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. This is an example of efficient communication.

  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?

  For a mutation tool (file upload) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after upload, what gets returned, error handling, or important constraints. The combination of mutation behavior + lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context than provided.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra value.

  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 ('上传' - upload) and target resource ('单个文件到腾讯云COS' - single file to Tencent Cloud COS), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'upload_multiple', which handles multiple files instead of single files.

  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 the sibling 'upload_multiple' for batch operations, nor does it explain when to choose this over other storage operations like 'get_signed_url' or 'list_objects'.

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

• upload_multipleC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (upload) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, whether files are overwritten, or what happens on partial failures. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

  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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making every word earn its place.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether uploads are atomic. The combination of mutation nature and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive content than provided.

  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 schema fully documenting the 'files' array parameter and its nested structure. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 ('批量上传' - batch upload) and target resource ('多个文件到腾讯云COS' - multiple files to Tencent Cloud COS), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'upload_file' by explicitly mentioning multiple files, though it doesn't fully explain the functional difference beyond the plural wording.

  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 like 'upload_file'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where batch upload is preferred over single-file upload, leaving the agent to 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.