Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• toutiao_publish_articleA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the browser automation mechanism and login requirement, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether publishing is immediate, what happens on failure, or if the tool waits for success confirmation.

  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, compact sentence that packs the core action, mechanism, and prerequisite without redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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 tool with three clearly documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately establishes the workflow and prerequisite. It could be more complete by mentioning expected outcomes or failure handling, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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?

  All three parameters are fully described in the schema (title, content, imagePath), so the description adds limited semantic value. It reinforces the role of each parameter in the automation flow but does not provide additional constraints or interpretations beyond the schema.

  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 identifies the action (publish article), the target resource (头条/Toutiao), and the specific elements involved (cover image, title, body) via browser automation. This differentiates it from the sibling tools for login, status check, and logout.

  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 explicitly states the prerequisite of a valid login (cookies.json), indicating this tool should be used after toutiao_login and before toutiao_logout. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion cases.

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

• toutiao_check_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of a headless browser and a notable side effect: refreshing local cookie when logged in. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid cookie or error handling, so it's good but not exhaustive.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently conveys both the mechanism and the side effect without waste.

  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?

  The core purpose and side effect are covered. However, the return value or status format is not described, and there's no output schema to compensate. For a simple tool this is a minor gap, but the description remains largely complete for invocation.

  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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the calibration baseline, 0 params earns a 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none to clarify.

  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: checking Toutiao login status via headless browser to validate cookie validity. It is a specific verb+resource action, and the mention of headless browser and cookie refresh distinguishes it from sibling tools like login/logout/publish.

  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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies usage for verifying login status before actions like publishing, but this is inferred rather than stated, lacking exclusions or alternative references.

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

• toutiao_loginA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the main steps: opening a browser, obtaining a QR code, waiting for scanning, and automatically saving cookies to cookies.json. This is a meaningful side effect disclosure, though it omits potential timeout behavior or error handling.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, purpose, and side effect without extraneous 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?

  The description provides a comprehensive overview of the login process and its side effect, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. It could explicitly mention that login is a prerequisite for sibling tools, but this is a minor omission.

  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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because none exist, and it does not attempt to explain any.

  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 specific verb '登录' (login) and the resource '今日头条' (Toutiao), and outlines the login flow: open browser, get QR code, wait for scan, and save cookie. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like check_status, logout, and publish_article.

  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 implies the tool is for authenticating before using Toutiao-related operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, leaving usage context lightly implied.

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

• toutiao_logoutA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 explicitly states the destructive action of deleting the local cookie file, which is transparent about the side effect. It does not need to mention permissions or reversibility for such a simple local 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant content.

  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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It accurately tells the agent what the tool does and the consequence, leaving no significant gaps for this scope.

  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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and it clearly explains the tool's action.

  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 uses a specific verb '退出登录' (logout) and specifies the resource '删除本地保存的 Cookie 文件 cookies.json' (deleting local cookie file). It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like login and check_status.

  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 clearly implies the tool is used when a user wants to log out by deleting the local cookie file. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear given the tool name and sibling tools.

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