Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generateReadmeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It highlights that the tool is 'read-only' (只读), meaning it doesn't write files, which is a key safety trait. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether it analyzes the repository, or any limitations. The description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

  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 sentence that communicates the core purpose and behavior without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it efficient for an AI agent.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does mention read-only return, which hints at the output, but it doesn't explain the role of each parameter or the expected result. The tool is relatively simple, so the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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

  Parameters1/5

  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 by explaining the parameters. It does not. The parameter names (name, features, description) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself, providing no guidance on expected formats or how the parameters relate to the generated README.

  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: generating README Markdown from project information. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('README Markdown'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like generateReadmePro, which might be a more advanced variant, so it loses one point.

  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 such as generateReadmePro or writeFile. The read-only hint in the title is helpful but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool or what exclusions apply.

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

• generateReadmeProB
  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 the full transparency burden. It only lists output content and omits side effects (e.g., whether files are written), required directory access, output format, or error behavior—critical gaps for a 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy, efficiently conveying the tool's core function and key outputs. Every phrase earns 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?

  For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value information, usage context, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for reliable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps some parameters (addBadges, includeTOC) by listing generated sections, but ignores other parameters like dir, name, language, description, maxTreeDepth, and extraFeatures, leaving many unclear.

  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 states a specific verb ('扫描' scan) and resource ('指定目录' specified directory) and explicitly lists the generated README sections (badges, TOC, scripts, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from the basic generateReadme sibling.

  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 like generateReadme or writeFile. It does not mention prerequisites, suitability, or exclusions.

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

• detectRepoA
  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 transparently states that the tool reads and returns information, but it omits details about error handling, what 'key information' includes, and whether there are any side effects. This is sufficient for a simple read operation but leaves 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and contains no extraneous information, making it easy 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?

  The tool has no output schema, so the description should have explained the return values. Saying 'return key information' is vague and does not specify what that information includes (e.g., name, version, scripts). It also lacks details on prerequisites or error behavior. For a tool with only one parameter, more completeness is expected.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'dir' parameter is the directory whose package.json should be read, giving meaning to an otherwise bare string parameter. This adds significant 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 clearly states the tool's function: reading the package.json in a specified directory and returning key information. The verb '读取' (read) and resource 'package.json' make the purpose explicit, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like generateReadme or writeFile, which perform different actions.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It is implied that this tool would be used to gather repo information before generating a README, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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

• writeFileA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavior that confirm=true is required for disk writes, and that otherwise a preview is returned. This adds significant safety context. It does not detail return values on success or failure, but the key behavioral trait is covered.

  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 short sentence that front-loads the most important information (the confirm gate). No wasted words; every part earns its place.

  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?

  The tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description clarifies the preview/write behavior, which is the main nuance. It does not state what is returned when confirm=true, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. Overall sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the confirm parameter, which is the least obvious one (boolean controlling write vs preview). filePath and content are self-explanatory from their names, but the description does not elaborate on them. Partial compensation.

  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 title '写文件（需确认）' clearly states the tool writes files, and the description specifies the conditional behavior (confirm=true writes to disk, otherwise preview). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detectRepo and generateReadme, which serve 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 implies usage: set confirm=true to write, otherwise preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but guidance is only implicit.

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