Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_system_infoA
  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 the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a string in JSON format, which is a useful detail about the output. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects (or lack thereof), required permissions, or error conditions. For a simple getter like this, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

  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, consisting of one main sentence and a Returns line. Every word contributes value, and the structure is clear with the Returns section. There is no redundancy.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters and a single output type, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns (JSON-formatted string). The presence of an output schema is supported by the return description, and no further context seems necessary.

  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, and the input schema is empty. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to add anything about parameters.

  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 function: '獲取系統環境資訊' (get system environment information). The verb is specific ('get') and the resource is clear ('system environment information'). There is no ambiguity with the sibling tool 'interactive_feedback', which serves a distinctly different purpose.

  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 implies when to use the tool: whenever system environment information is needed. Since there are no parameters or complex prerequisites, explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is unnecessary. The context is clear, and no alternative tool for this function exists among siblings.

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

• interactive_feedbackA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 explains that the tool must be called repeatedly, that feedback content triggers adjustment and further calls, and that the tool returns a list of TextContent and MCPImage objects. It also discloses the [NEW TASK] behavior, which is beyond what annotations or schema would convey.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is verbose and includes repetitive instructions ('must call this tool' appears multiple times). While it is well-structured with headers and numbered rules, it could be more concise. The inclusion of the full USAGE RULES block is necessary for the agent's behavior, but some redundancy could be trimmed without losing meaning.

  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 that there is no output schema and only three parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers when to use the tool, when to stop, how to respond to feedback, and how to handle task transitions ([NEW TASK]). It also explains the return format and provides project directory context. This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds additional meaning by explaining that 'project_directory' helps the user know what was done and that 'summary' is for user review, which enriches the parameter context beyond the schema field descriptions. The 'timeout' parameter is also given a default value with intent (waiting for user feedback).

  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 opens with 'Interactive feedback collection tool for LLM agents,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as collecting feedback. It uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('feedback'), and the usage rules clarify that it is for obtaining user feedback during tasks, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_system_info.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The USAGE RULES section explicitly states when to call the tool (during any process, task, or conversation, including asking, replying, and completing phased tasks) and when to stop (only when the user explicitly indicates 'end' or 'no more interaction needed'). It also provides context for handling [NEW TASK] prefixes and summarizes behavior for the next step. This is thorough and actionable.

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