Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_wordcloud_from_fileC
  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. It mentions this is a '组合操作' (combined operation) but doesn't specify whether this creates files, modifies data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 12 parameters that presumably generates files, this is insufficient behavioral context. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide needed behavioral information.

  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 Chinese sentence that clearly states the core functionality. It's appropriately concise without being under-specified. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it could potentially include more context, what's present is well-structured and wastes no words.

  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 (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (presumably a file path or image data), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no behavioral context for a tool that likely creates files. With rich input schema but no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to help the agent understand the complete operation.

  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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general concept of generating word clouds from files. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or provide additional semantic context. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

  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: '从文档文件直接生成词云图' (generate word cloud directly from document files) and specifies it's a combination operation of text extraction and word cloud generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning this combined functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives. The purpose is specific (verb+resource+scope) but could be more explicit about 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 the sibling tools (extract_text_from_file and generate_wordcloud). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts where this combined operation is preferable to using the separate tools. The agent receives no usage guidance beyond the basic functionality description.

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

• extract_text_from_fileC
  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 what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for unsupported formats or corrupted files), performance (e.g., speed or size limits), or output specifics (e.g., text encoding or formatting). 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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and supported formats without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 complexity of a file processing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output behavior (e.g., what the extracted text looks like, error messages), performance constraints, or usage context. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('filePath' and 'fileType') with descriptions and an enum for 'fileType'. The description adds minimal value by listing the supported formats, which aligns with the enum, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: extracting text content from document files, with specific formats listed (PDF, Word, TXT, MD). It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('text content from document files'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_wordcloud_from_file' or 'generate_wordcloud', which appear to be different 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 lists supported formats but doesn't mention when to choose this tool over sibling tools (e.g., for text extraction vs. word cloud generation) or any prerequisites, such as file accessibility or format limitations beyond the listed ones.

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

• generate_wordcloudC
  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 full burden. It states the tool generates a word cloud image but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what happens to the output file, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 11 parameters and file output, this is a significant gap.

  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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any extraneous information.

  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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (presumably a file path or image data), error conditions, performance expectations, or how the various parameters interact. The single-sentence description fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively despite its 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '文字内容' (text content) which aligns with the 'text' parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

  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: '根据文字内容生成词云图' (Generate a word cloud image based on text content). It specifies the verb ('生成' - generate) and resource ('词云图' - word cloud image). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_wordcloud_from_file' which likely generates word clouds from files rather than direct text input.

  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 are sibling tools ('create_wordcloud_from_file' and 'extract_text_from_file') that likely serve related purposes, but the description doesn't mention them or explain when this direct text input tool is preferable over file-based alternatives.

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