Accumulate agent capability ratings with scores from 0.0 to 1.0, attach optional comments, and update the owner agent's trust while preventing rating fraud.
能力评价——调用后累积评分（0.0~1.0），防刷。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | 评分 0.0~1.0（必填） | |
| comment | No | 可选评论 | |
| rater_id | Yes | 评价者 agentId（必填） | |
| capability_id | Yes | 能力 ID（必填） | |
| owner_agent_id | Yes | 能力 owner agentId（必填——用于更新 trust） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool accumulates a score after invocation and has anti-spam/anti-abuse protections, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects on trust, idempotency, rate limits, or permissions, leaving significant behavior undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loads the core purpose and key constraint. The lead phrase “能力评价” partly restates the tool name, but the rest of the sentence adds meaningful behavior, so it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 5-parameter rating tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally viable. It lacks explicit guidance on the exact invocation trigger, the effect on capability trust, and the expected result, but the schema plus the brief description provide enough for a straightforward call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only the score range (0.0~1.0), which duplicates the schema, and provides no additional meaning for rater_id, capability_id, or owner_agent_id beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (capability) and the action (rate/evaluate) with a clear score range. It is distinct enough from the sibling tools like commons_invoke or commons_publish, though it uses the noun-like phrase “能力评价” rather than a strong verb and does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
“调用后” implies this tool should be used after a capability invocation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. Usage context is only lightly implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.