Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_scrapeC
  2.9/5.0
  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 extraction of text and metadata but fails to describe critical traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), or output format. This is inadequate for a web scraping tool that likely involves network operations and potential restrictions.

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 of web scraping (involving network calls, potential errors, and content parsing) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'extract text and metadata' entails in practice (e.g., structured data, limitations), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (url, extractText, extractMetadata) with their types, defaults, and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 as '抓取指定网页的内容，提取文本和元数据' (scrape content from specified web pages, extract text and metadata), which includes a specific verb ('抓取' - scrape) and resource ('网页' - web pages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'web_search' by focusing on extraction rather than searching, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'web_search_and_scrape'.

  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 'web_search' or 'web_search_and_scrape'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., URL validity), exclusions (e.g., dynamic content), or comparisons with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• web_search_and_scrapeC
  2.9/5.0
  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 scraping '前几个结果的内容' (content of top results), implying a limit based on search ranking, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that performs web operations with potential complexities.

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

  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 tool's complexity (web search and scrape), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '抓取内容' (scrape content) entails (e.g., full text, metadata), potential limitations, or how results are returned, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'query', 'maxResults', and 'language'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying '前几个结果' relates to 'maxResults', which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 as '搜索网页并抓取前几个结果的内容' (search web and scrape content of top results), which specifies the verb (search and scrape) and resource (web pages). It distinguishes from 'web_scrape' (scraping only) and 'web_search' (searching only) by combining both functions, though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation.

  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 its siblings 'web_scrape' or 'web_search'. There are no explicit instructions on alternatives, prerequisites, or context for choosing this combined tool over separate ones, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

• web_searchB
  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 carries full burden. It mentions returning '网页链接和摘要' (webpage links and summaries), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like rate limits, authentication needs, result freshness, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by '搜索'). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the core function and what it returns. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.

  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 this is a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness. It covers the core function and return format, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like rate limits or result structure details that would be helpful for an agent. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally say more about return values.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (query, language, maxResults). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

  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: '在互联网上搜索信息' (search for information on the internet) with the verb '搜索' (search) and resource '信息' (information). It distinguishes from sibling 'web_scrape' by focusing on search rather than scraping, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'web_search_and_scrape' which combines both functions.

  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 for general internet searching, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'web_scrape' or 'web_search_and_scrape'. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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