Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_taskC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. '添加' (add) implies a mutation, but the description does not mention side effects, permission requirements, return values, or error behavior. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  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, concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words, which is appropriate for a simple tool, though it is too brief to convey behavioral nuance.

  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?

  Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance. As a mutation tool with no annotations, it is incomplete for an agent to understand side effects or invoke it safely. The description covers only the basic purpose and omits critical context.

  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%, and the description does not mention the 'title' parameter at all. The schema only indicates that 'title' is a required string, but the description adds no meaning about what the title represents or how it is used, failing to compensate for the schema's sparse information.

  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 '添加一条待办任务' clearly states the action of adding a todo task, with a specific verb ('add') and resource ('todo task'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'complete_task' and 'delete_task' by implying a creation operation, though it does not explicitly compare against them.

  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 'complete_task' or 'delete_task'. It does not state use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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

• delete_taskA
  3.5/5.0
  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. It only says 'delete', which inherently implies destruction, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether it is a hard or soft delete. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. It is optimally concise.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly identifies the action and target, but it omits details like behavior for non-existent tasks or response codes. Overall, adequate for a simple delete operation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only refers to 'specified id' without adding meaning beyond the schema's task_id field. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter detail, though the single parameter is simple and self-explanatory.

  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 'Delete the task with the specified id' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (task), and it distinguishes from sibling tools add_task and complete_task. It is specific and unambiguous.

  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 use when deleting a task by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus add_task or complete_task. No exclusions or alternative instructions are provided.

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

• complete_taskA
  3.6/5.0
  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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description simply states the action without mentioning side effects, error handling, idempotency, or permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency—it does not reveal whether the operation is reversible or what happens if the task ID is invalid.

  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 that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

  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?

  The tool has a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, since there are no annotations, the description would benefit from adding behavioral details like idempotency or error conditions. It remains minimally viable but leaves gaps in operational context.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '指定 id' referencing the task_id parameter, but does not add any meaning beyond the schema's field name and type. No constraints, default behavior, or error conditions are described for the parameter.

  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 '把指定 id 的任务标记为完成' clearly states the action (mark complete) on a specific resource (task identified by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools add_task and delete_task by specifying the completion operation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to mark a task as complete. It does not explicitly mention comparisons or exclusions with sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous. No alternative guidance is given, but the usage scenario is directly implied.

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