Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find-notesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Lacks annotations; description says returns 'title and other metadata' but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or read-only status. Insufficient detail for a search tool.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Adequate for a simple search tool but missing details on return format, sorting, and error handling. No output schema to compensate.

  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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage); description adds that results include title and metadata but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool searches notes with optional filters, which is specific and distinct from siblings like 'get-note' but does not explicitly differentiate.

  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 such as 'list-notebooks' or 'get-note'. Does not mention excluded cases or prerequisites.

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

• create-noteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses that content is auto-converted from Markdown to ENML, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on success/failure behavior, required authentication, or potential side effects.

  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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with key information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for purpose and special behavior), but it is adequately compact.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and the Markdown conversion, but fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created note object or confirmation). For a create operation, return value is important context.

  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 description coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that 'content' is Markdown and will be auto-converted to ENML, which is not in the schema description. This enhances understanding beyond the bare field descriptions.

  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 action (create) and resource (note), and specifies a key detail: content is Markdown auto-converted to ENML. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list-notebooks, find-notes, get-note) which are not creation tools.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied (when you need to create a note), but no deeper context is provided.

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

• get-noteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation and converts content to Markdown. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only tool, this is minimal yet adequate.

  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 in Chinese, front-loading the action and key behavior. Every word adds value; 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?

  For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and conversion. It lacks explicit output format details but is still fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

  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% (guid parameter described as '笔记 guid'). The tool description adds context that the tool reads a note and converts to Markdown, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states the verb 'read' and resource 'note', specifies retrieval by guid, and mentions conversion to Markdown. It distinguishes from siblings: list-notebooks lists notebooks, find-notes searches, create-note creates, while get-note retrieves a single note by guid.

  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?

  Usage context is implied by the name and description: use to read a note by guid. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives explicitly named.

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

• list-notebooksA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a list operation with no params, the core behavior is clear, but safety context is missing.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word is necessary, with no superfluous content.

  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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. It could mention that it is safe/read-only, but this is implied. Minor gap in behavioral context.

  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. With 100% schema description coverage (vacuously), the description adds no parameter details but is not required to. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

  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 lists all notebooks (name and guid) for the current account. The verb 'list' and resource 'notebooks' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on notes.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, sibling tool names ('find-notes', 'create-note', 'get-note') imply this is for notebooks, but no when-not or exclusion conditions are provided.

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