Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_statusB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about how it behaves: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or side effects. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address what the status check returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. For a tool that presumably returns status information, the description should at minimum hint at the response format or possible outcomes.

  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 schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter documentation is required.

  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: checking QQ login status and NapCat connection status. It uses specific verbs ('check') and identifies two distinct resources (login status, connection status). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_context' or 'send_message', which prevents a perfect score.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to sibling tools. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate usage contexts beyond the basic purpose statement.

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

• get_group_listB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only/safe—critical for a tool that likely accesses bot data.

  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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list includes (e.g., group IDs, names), potential errors, or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's unnecessary here, warranting a high baseline score for simplicity.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('list of QQ groups the bot has joined'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (like 'get_recent_context'), but it's specific enough to avoid vagueness or tautology.

  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 alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving group lists, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or contrast with other tools like 'check_status' or 'send_message' that might involve groups.

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

• send_imageB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'monitored group or whitelisted friend' hinting at permission/access constraints, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'send' entails (e.g., immediate delivery, async). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining target_type details). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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?

  For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors, response format). It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the complexity.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: target (Group ID or friend QQ ID), image (Base64-encoded without prefix), target_type (group/private with default), and reply_to (optional message ID). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format details like QQ ID structure.

  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 ('Send an image') and target ('to a monitored group or whitelisted friend'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_message' which presumably sends text. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential image-related siblings (none exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 5.

  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 mentions 'monitored group or whitelisted friend' which implies some access restrictions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'send_message' or prerequisites. It lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

• compress_contextB
  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 must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'replaces raw messages with a compressed summary, freeing up the buffer,' which implies a destructive mutation (replacement) and buffer clearing. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if compression fails, making it insufficient for a mutation 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It's efficient with minimal fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the main text.

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, basic usage, and parameter meanings but lacks behavioral details like error handling or output format, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it safely.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target' as 'Group ID or friend QQ ID' and 'target_type' as '"group" (default) or "private",' adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types. This covers both parameters adequately, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure).

  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 compresses buffered messages into a summary for a target, specifying the action (compress) and resource (buffered messages). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recent_context' (reads) or 'send_message' (sends), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

  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?

  It provides some context: 'Use this after reading context when you want to archive old messages,' implying timing and purpose. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'batch_get_recent_context' for reading without compression, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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

• send_messageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like message splitting with typing delays and reply functionality, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when sending fails. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational context.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first.

  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?

  For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly but lacks information about return values, error handling, authentication requirements, and operational constraints. It's complete for basic usage but insufficient for robust implementation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail. It clarifies target types, optional reply functionality, and sophisticated message splitting behavior including the interaction between split_content and num_chunks. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Send a message') and target ('to a monitored group or whitelisted friend'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_image' beyond the message type, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 'send_image' or other communication methods. It mentions target types but doesn't explain when to choose 'group' vs 'private' or prerequisites for sending messages.

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

• get_recent_contextA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 adds useful context: it specifies that messages are 'buffered (backfill + real-time) without compression,' images are returned as 'URL strings,' and there's a default limit. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, permissions needed for monitored groups, or rate limits, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

  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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then details return behavior, usage note, image handling, and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters and key behaviors (uncompressed messages, image URLs), but lacks details on output structure (e.g., message format, error responses) and doesn't fully address complexity like authentication or monitoring requirements. It's adequate but incomplete for a tool with rich context needs.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'target' is explained as 'Group ID or friend QQ ID,' 'target_type' as '"group" (default) or "private,"' and 'limit' as 'Number of recent messages to return (default 200).' This provides clear context beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on format constraints (e.g., ID formats).

  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: 'Get recent message context for a monitored group or whitelisted friend.' It specifies the resource (message context) and scope (monitored group/whitelisted friend). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_get_recent_context' or 'compress_context' beyond mentioning the latter.

  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 provides some usage guidance: it mentions using 'compress_context to manually compress when needed,' which implies this tool returns uncompressed data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_get_recent_context' or when to prefer it over other context-related tools, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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

• batch_get_recent_contextA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 effectively describes the efficiency aspect (uses at most 2 API calls) and the default behavior for target_type. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like, which are important for a batch query 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?

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by efficiency rationale and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the example is concise yet illustrative. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, or performance implications beyond API call count. For a batch tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, this leaves gaps in operational 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'targets' is explained with structure, optional fields, and an example, and 'limit' specifies the default and meaning. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on ID formats or constraints.

  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 action ('batch query recent message context') and resource ('for multiple targets'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_recent_context' by emphasizing batch efficiency. It explicitly contrasts with the single-target version, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it states it's 'more efficient than calling get_recent_context multiple times' and explains the API call optimization. This directly addresses the sibling tool comparison and gives clear context for choosing this batch method.

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