Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• job104_searchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'search' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose that results are paginated, how pagination works, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data volume. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter hints.

  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 sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word 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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of job listings) or any additional context needed to use it effectively. While the parameter schema is complete, the overall description leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results, making it less than minimally viable 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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (keyword, page, location), covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. According to the rubric, when schema description coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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: '搜尋 104 人力銀行的職缺' (search job openings on 104 Job Bank). It uses a specific verb ('搜尋') and resource ('104人力銀行的職缺'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'job104_get_details' and 'job104_prepare_application'.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The functionality itself implies that searching is the first step before getting details or preparing an application, but this is not stated. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

• job104_get_detailsA
  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 shoulder the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool's function and does not mention whether it is read-only, how errors are handled, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond 'details and requirements'. The name 'get_details' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm this or add 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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning a top score for conciseness.

  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?

  For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essence: it retrieves detailed content and condition requirements for one job. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could be enhanced by explicitly noting that the job_url must be valid or that the tool is read-only, but given its simplicity, a slight deduction is made.

  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 the one parameter (job_url) with a description and format example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 '取得單一職缺的詳細內容與條件要求' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (detailed content and conditions of a single job posting). It distinguishes this tool from siblings (job104_search for searching, job104_prepare_application for applying) by focusing on retrieving details for an already-known specific job, making the purpose unequivocal.

  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 used when you have a job URL and need detailed information for that single job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a URL. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

• job104_prepare_applicationA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it does not submit automatically and requires human confirmation. However, with no annotations, it does not cover other safety aspects like authentication, reversibility, or side effects, and the description is relatively thin.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, one specifying the action and one specifying the human-in-the-loop caveat. No wasted words.

  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 has a simple purpose and complete schema coverage. The description covers the core behavior and human confirmation requirement, but could mention return values or prerequisites. Overall, adequate.

  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?

  All three parameters have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics, but none are needed given 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 opens the application window and fills in information, specifying the action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but siblings are search and get_details, so the purpose is distinct by name and context.

  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 notes it is a helper that requires human final confirmation, implying it should be used as a step before manual submission. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus search or get_details, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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