Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_chat_historyB
  3.3/5.0
  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. It discloses fuzzy matching and date range filtering, which is useful. However, it does not mention return ordering, pagination, handling of system messages, or other behavioral traits, leaving notable 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 with two clauses, efficiently covering the core function and key features. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

  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 is relatively simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description conveys the primary purpose and filtering capabilities, but lacks usage guidance and some behavioral details, making it minimally complete given the context.

  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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of fuzzy matching and date filtering duplicates what the schema already states for chat_name, start_date, and end_date, adding no extra semantic depth.

  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 verb '获取' (get) and resource '指定聊天的消息记录' (message records of a specified chat), which is specific. It also mentions fuzzy matching and date filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_sessions or search_messages, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

  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 vs. alternatives such as search_messages or get_recent_sessions. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific chat's history, but lacks explicit context for selection or exclusion.

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

• get_contactsA
  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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and object, without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, or behavior such as pagination or sorting. The schema descriptions provide some parameter details, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the tool name.

  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 that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, achieving high efficiency.

  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, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral detail, which would make it fully complete for an agent.

  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 fully documents both parameters (limit and query), including defaults and matching logic. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('搜索或列出微信联系人', i.e., 'search or list WeChat contacts'), making the tool's purpose explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_sessions and get_chat_history, which focus on sessions and messages.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the tool's name and description imply it is for contact retrieval, while siblings focus on session/message data, giving a subtle contextual cue. This meets the 'implied usage' level but not explicit guidance.

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

• search_messagesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the global search scope and that it looks at message content, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or pagination 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 concise sentence in Chinese, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

  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 clearly defined parameters and an output schema. The description adequately conveys the core functionality, though it could benefit from a note on usage boundaries relative to sibling tools.

  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 fully documents both keyword and limit with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

  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 that searching all chat records for messages containing the keyword is the tool's function. It uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the scope as 'all chat records,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve sessions, history by chat, or contacts.

  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 the tool is for keyword-based search across all chats but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over get_chat_history or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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

• get_recent_sessionsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the output fields (message summary, unread count, time) and implies recency via '最近', but it does not mention sorting order, filtering, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

  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 consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and then provide usage context. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output content. It does not delve into edge cases or operational prerequisites, but for a simple read-only list tool, this is acceptable.

  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 covers the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description and default value (20), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

  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 '获取微信最近会话列表' (get WeChat recent session list), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_chat_history and search_messages by focusing on sessions rather than messages, and mentions the included fields (latest message summary, unread count, time).

  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 a clear context for use: '用于了解最近有哪些人/群在聊天' (used to understand who/groups have been chatting recently). While this implies the appropriate scenario, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use search_messages instead.

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