Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• addB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns a result, which is basic behavioral information, but lacks details like error handling, performance characteristics, or any constraints. For a simple arithmetic tool, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

  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 no wasted words: '将两个数字相加并返回结果'. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand immediately.

  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 low complexity (simple arithmetic), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and the description's basic clarity, it is mostly complete. However, the lack of usage guidelines and minimal parameter semantics slightly reduce completeness for an AI agent.

  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 0% description coverage, but the description adds some semantic context by specifying that the parameters are '两个数字' (two numbers). However, it doesn't explain what 'a' and 'b' represent beyond being numbers, leaving gaps in understanding their roles.

  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: '将两个数字相加并返回结果' (adds two numbers and returns the result). It specifies the verb (adds) and resource (two numbers), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'subtract' or 'multiply' beyond the inherent meaning of 'add'.

  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 like 'subtract', 'multiply', or 'divide'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

• subtractB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (subtract) and outcome (return result), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, side effects, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a 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: '将两个数字相减并返回结果'. It is front-loaded with the core action, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple arithmetic tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

  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 low complexity (basic subtraction), 2 parameters with a simple schema, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential purpose and outcome. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in this context.

  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 description implies two numeric parameters but doesn't name or explain them beyond 'two numbers'. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines types (number) and requirements. The description adds minimal semantic value (e.g., it clarifies the operation is subtraction, not addition), but doesn't compensate fully for the coverage gap, such as by specifying parameter roles (e.g., minuend and subtrahend).

  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: '将两个数字相减并返回结果' (subtract two numbers and return the result). It specifies the verb (subtract), resource (two numbers), and outcome (return result). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'divide' beyond the inherent meaning of subtraction.

  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 like 'add' or 'divide'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and basic description.

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

• divideB
  3.3/5.0
  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 basic operation but lacks details on error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance, or other behavioral traits. It does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

  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 front-loads the purpose and outcome with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 low complexity (basic arithmetic), 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks error handling details, which is a minor gap for a division operation.

  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 description adds meaning by specifying that the parameters are 'two numbers' to be divided, which clarifies the input schema's properties 'a' and 'b'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it does not detail parameter roles (e.g., dividend and divisor).

  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 ('divide') and resources ('two numbers'), and specifies the outcome ('return result'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on division rather than addition, multiplication, or subtraction. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation in the text.

  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 the sibling tools (add, multiply, subtract). The description implies usage for division operations but offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

• multiplyB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic behavior (multiply and return), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., overflow, invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

  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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 low complexity (simple arithmetic), two parameters with an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying that the tool multiplies 'two numbers', which aligns with the two parameters (a and b). However, it doesn't detail parameter roles (e.g., which is multiplicand/multiplier) or constraints beyond being numbers, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 function ('将两个数字相乘并返回结果' translates to 'multiply two numbers and return the result'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'divide', though the mathematical operation is inherently distinct.

  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 like 'add' or 'divide'. While the mathematical context might imply usage for multiplication operations, there's no explicit mention of when to choose this over other arithmetic tools or any prerequisites.

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