Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lanzou_get_file_linkC
  2.6/5.0
  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 mentions the API call and parameters but fails to describe key traits such as authentication needs (implied by cookieHeader), rate limits, error handling, or what the output includes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the API call and key parameters. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  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 the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 3 parameters (2 required), and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks context on authentication, errors, and sibling tool differentiation, making it only minimally adequate.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references file_id and implies cookieHeader usage but doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., fileId as identifier, cookieHeader for authentication) or the optional uid. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool calls a specific API endpoint (doupload.php task=22) to get file download information and links by file_id, which clarifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'lanzou_get_direct_link' or 'lanzou_get_mydisk_content', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

  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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lanzou_get_direct_link'. The description implies usage based on file_id and cookieHeader, but there's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering minimal context for selection.

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

• lanzou_get_mydisk_contentC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions calling an API endpoint with a default parameter (task=5), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by cookieHeader parameter), rate limits, error handling, or what 'disk content' includes. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavior unspecified.

  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 very concise with just one sentence, front-loaded with the API call. There's no wasted text, but it may be overly terse given the complexity. Every word earns its place, though more detail would improve utility without sacrificing brevity.

  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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings or behavioral context, though the output schema may cover return values. For a tool with authentication and API interaction, more guidance is needed despite the output schema.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the requestBody parameter having a default value of 'task=5', but doesn't explain what uid or cookieHeader are for, their formats, or how they relate to the operation. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool calls a specific API endpoint (doupload.php) to get disk content, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'disk content' means (files, folders, metadata?) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like lanzou_get_file_link or lanzou_get_direct_link. The description lacks specificity about the resource being retrieved.

  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 doesn't mention sibling tools like lanzou_get_file_link or lanzou_get_direct_link, nor does it explain prerequisites (e.g., needing to log in first with lanzou_login). There's no context about when this tool is appropriate versus other methods.

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

• lanzou_loginC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: success is determined by checking for 'Set-Cookie' in response headers. However, it lacks critical details: what happens on failure (error handling), whether credentials are stored/persisted, rate limits, authentication scope, or what the tool returns beyond the success check. For a login 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's action and success criterion. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality without 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 complexity (authentication tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how the login state integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely enables other operations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and behavior.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema—it doesn't explain what 'username' and 'password' represent (e.g., LanZou account credentials), format expectations, or constraints. With 2 undocumented parameters and no description enhancement, this fails to meet the baseline.

  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: '调用蓝奏云登录接口' (call the LanZou cloud login interface). It specifies the verb ('调用' - call/execute) and resource ('蓝奏云登录接口' - LanZou cloud login interface), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (which are all file/link retrieval tools), so it doesn't fully distinguish its authentication purpose from their data access purposes.

  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 (e.g., needing login before using sibling tools), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The only implied usage is for authentication, but this is basic and lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

• lanzou_get_direct_linkC
  2.8/5.0
  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 describes the technical process (extracting ajaxm/sign, requesting downprocess) but lacks critical behavioral information: authentication requirements (cookieHeader parameter usage), rate limits, error handling, what constitutes a valid shareUrl, or whether this operation has side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 appropriately concise - one sentence that efficiently describes the tool's functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core capability and follows with implementation details. However, the technical jargon ('ajaxm/sign', 'downprocess') assumes domain knowledge without explanation, slightly reducing clarity for non-specialist agents.

  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 the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does technically but misses important context: parameter usage, authentication needs, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema existence means return values documentation isn't needed, but other contextual gaps remain significant for proper tool selection and invocation.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions support for '无密码与带密码分享页' (password/no-password sharing pages) which relates to the 'password' parameter, and implies URL processing for 'shareUrl', but doesn't explain the 'cookieHeader' parameter at all or provide format examples, validation rules, or relationship between parameters. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

  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: '蓝奏云直链获取' (LanZou Cloud direct link acquisition) with specific actions - supports password/no-password sharing pages, extracts ajaxm/sign from /fn or sharing page scripts, and requests downprocess to get direct links. It uses specific verbs ('支持', '自动提取', '请求获取') and identifies the resource (direct links from LanZou Cloud). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lanzou_get_file_link' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 'lanzou_get_file_link' or 'lanzou_get_mydisk_content'. It mentions support for password/no-password scenarios but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit when/when-not instructions.

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