Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_dynamic_commentsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the authentication requirement (Bilibili Cookie needed for functionality) and mentions pagination and threaded reply capabilities. While it doesn't describe rate limits or detailed error behavior, it provides meaningful operational context that complements the annotations.

  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 and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, while the second provides critical operational context (authentication requirement). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  For a read-only tool with complete schema documentation and annotations, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core purpose, key capabilities (pagination, threaded replies), and critical operational requirement (Cookie authentication). While no output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling video comments tool.

  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 input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions pagination and threaded replies which correspond to 'page', 'pageSize', and 'includeReplies' parameters already well-described in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

  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: '获取 B 站动态的评论内容' (get Bilibili dynamic comments). It specifies the resource (Bilibili dynamic comments) and key capabilities (pagination and threaded replies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_video_comments' - both retrieve comments but for different content types (dynamic vs video).

  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 provides some usage context with the authentication requirement note ('需要有效的 B 站 Cookie 才能正常工作'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus its sibling 'get_video_comments' or other alternatives. It implies usage for Bilibili dynamic comments specifically, but lacks clear comparative guidance.

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

• get_video_commentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate read-only and closed-world operations, the description specifies authentication requirements ('需要有效的 B 站 Cookie 才能正常工作'), which is crucial for the agent to understand prerequisites. It also mentions support for pagination, sorting, and nested replies, providing operational 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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does and key features, the second provides critical authentication information. 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?

  For a read-only tool with comprehensive parameter documentation (100% schema coverage) and clear annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers authentication requirements and key behavioral features. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description mentions output format options, partially compensating.

  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 input schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

  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 purpose: '获取 B 站视频的评论内容' (get Bilibili video comments). It specifies the resource (Bilibili video comments) and distinguishes from its sibling tool 'get_dynamic_comments' by focusing on video comments rather than dynamic comments.

  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 for when to use this tool: for retrieving Bilibili video comments with pagination, sorting, and nested replies. It mentions the requirement for valid Bilibili cookies. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to the sibling tool 'get_dynamic_comments'.

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