Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_knowledgeB
  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 disclosing behavior. It merely states that the tool queries the knowledge base, without confirming read-only semantics, side effects, return format, or any operational constraints. The verb 'query' implies reading, but this is not made explicit, and no additional behavioral context is given.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise and contains no extraneous information, earning its place despite the minor semantic discrepancy noted above.

  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 has a simple schema with three parameters and no output schema. The description provides an overview of the knowledge base categories but omits any explanation of return values or result structure. The mismatch between the description and schema regarding 'strategy candidates' also detracts from completeness, leaving the agent with only partial context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides full coverage (100%) and detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds limited value. However, it introduces a potential inconsistency by listing 'strategy candidates' (策略候选) as part of the knowledge base, which does not correspond to any enum value in the schema. This could mislead an agent into attempting an invalid query type, and the description does not clarify parameter-specific behavior 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 (query) and the resource (the accumulated knowledge base), listing specific content categories. It distinguishes from sibling tools through the verb 'query' (查询) versus inject, evolve, and history retrieval. Even though the list includes 'strategy candidates' not present in the schema's enum, the primary purpose remains unambiguous.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name. This is a significant gap given the availability of related tools like inject_knowledge and get_evolution_history.

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

• inject_knowledgeB
  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 must disclose behavior itself but only gives a high-level purpose ('intervene in evolution direction, accelerate convergence'). It does not mention side effects, whether existing knowledge is overwritten, reversal possibilities, or failure behavior if the signature doesn't match. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

  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 concise sentence that communicates the action, input types, and purpose without redundant fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core verb 'inject' and resource, earning its place.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  This is a complex tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description lacks operational details: how the injection integrates with evolution history, what happens on invalid input, and the exact role of the 'fix' JavaScript code. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently use it 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'obfuscation patterns or custom strategies' which maps to the injectType enum, but does not add detail about how signature and fix work together or affect behavior. It adds no parameter-specific value 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 uses a specific verb ('inject') and resource ('knowledge base'), clearly indicating it adds human experience (obfuscation patterns or custom strategies) to influence evolution. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools: query_knowledge reads, get_evolution_history reads history, evolve_js runs evolution, while this tool modifies the knowledge base.

  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 usage context: to intervene in evolution direction and accelerate convergence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., query_knowledge or evolve_js) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided beyond the inferred purpose.

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

• evolve_jsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the iterative evolution process, the threshold termination condition, and a self-learning side effect (accumulates experience, faster over time). However, it does not mention potential failure modes, performance implications, or the nature of persisted state, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, and the second sentence efficiently adds the self-learning behavior. No redundant or vague wording; every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  This is a complex tool with six parameters and no output schema. The description explains the high-level evolutionary process but omits what the tool returns (e.g., deobfuscated code, logs, status), potential side effects beyond self-learning, and any conditions for when to use it. The schema covers parameter meaning, but for a tool of this complexity, the description leaves notable gaps in overall completeness.

  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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, mentioning only 'matching rate threshold' which is already captured by successThreshold. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action: launching an automated evolutionary reverse engineering workflow on a target URL until deobfuscated code matching reaches a threshold. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (inject_knowledge, get_evolution_history, query_knowledge) are clearly about knowledge/history, so this tool's role as the main evolution operation is distinct.

  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 the primary evolution entry point but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are knowledge-related, so context helps, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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

• get_evolution_historyA
  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 carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb '查看' (view) indicates a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or further details about how the branches are listed. It adds some context by specifying the scope ('all') and the status values, but leaves out other potential behavioral nuances.

  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, focused sentence that is directly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language. It is appropriately sized for a simple read 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?

  For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It clearly states what the tool does and what statuses are shown. It does not explain the return format or how 'limit' affects results, but for a status-viewing tool, this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role, though additional context about branching semantics could enhance usability.

  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 fully documents the only parameter (limit) with its description and default value. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and there is no extra value from the description.

  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: viewing the status of evolution branches in the GitNexus sandbox repository. It uses a specific verb (查看/view) and specifies the resource (evolution branches) and the three possible statuses (open, merged, abandoned). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evolve_js and inject_knowledge, which clearly have different purposes.

  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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when you need to check branch statuses) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The purpose is clear, but there is no direct comparison to siblings or exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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