Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_markdown_to_cardC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool converts Markdown to knowledge cards but doesn't describe what a 'knowledge card' entails (e.g., format, output type, or whether it's a file, image, or data structure). It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 a conversion tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (what a 'knowledge card' is), lacks behavioral context, and provides no usage guidelines. With no annotations and an output schema missing, the description fails to compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for full 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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'content' and 'filePath' interact or what 'knowledge card' means in terms of output. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description over the 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 tool's purpose: converting Markdown content to knowledge cards. It uses specific verbs ('convert') and resources ('Markdown content', 'knowledge cards'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_card_image' or 'list_available_themes', which could involve similar card-related operations.

  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 sibling tools like 'generate_card_image' or 'list_available_themes', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing this tool over others. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

• generate_card_imageC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '转换为知识卡片图片' (convert to knowledge card image) implies a generation/write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this creates files on disk (implied by outputDir parameter), what permissions might be needed, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's core function. It's perfectly front-loaded with zero wasted words or redundant information. Every character earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

  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 a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'knowledge card image' is, what the output looks like (file format, location, naming), or provide any context about the transformation process. Users must infer everything from parameter names and schema descriptions alone.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like quality only applying to jpeg format) or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

  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: '将Markdown内容转换为知识卡片图片' (Convert Markdown content to knowledge card image). It specifies both the input (Markdown content) and output (knowledge card image), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_markdown_to_card' which appears to have similar 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. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'convert_markdown_to_card' or 'list_available_themes', nor any context about when this specific image generation tool is preferred over other conversion options.

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

• list_available_themesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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, concise sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what '主题样式' (theme styles) entails, the format of the returned data, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of themes, more details on the output structure or usage context would be helpful.

  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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not mention any. A baseline of 4 is given as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

  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 ('列出所有可用的' - list all available) and resource ('主题样式' - theme styles), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_markdown_to_card' or 'generate_card_image', which are unrelated operations, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it should be applied. It simply states what it does without any usage instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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