Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_rich_menuC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant behavioral gaps 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's 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?

  For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like error conditions, return values, side effects, or how this tool relates to siblings (e.g., 'cancel_rich_menu_default'). The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

  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%, with the single parameter 'richMenuId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

  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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a rich menu from your LINE Official Account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'cancel_rich_menu_default' or explain how deletion differs from cancellation, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 'cancel_rich_menu_default' or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., whether the rich menu must be inactive or unlinked first). It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

• push_flex_messageC
  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 the message is 'highly customizable' and supports specific layouts, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential detail about layout options. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

  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 messaging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after pushing (e.g., success response, error handling), doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, and leaves key parameters like 'userId' under-explained. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective use.

  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 50% (only 'altText' and container 'type' have descriptions). The description adds some value by explaining bubble vs. carousel layouts, which clarifies the 'contents.type' enum. However, it doesn't explain the 'userId' parameter (beyond what the schema's default value implies) or provide additional context about the flexible container structure beyond what's in the schema. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

  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 ('push'), the resource ('flex message'), and the target ('to a user via LINE'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'push_text_message' by specifying 'flex message' and mentioning bubble/carousel layouts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'broadcast_flex_message' (which likely sends to multiple users).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions bubble vs. carousel layouts but doesn't provide context for choosing between this tool and siblings like 'broadcast_flex_message' (for multiple users) or 'push_text_message' (for simpler text). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

• set_rich_menu_defaultC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('set') but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation requiring specific permissions, whether it's reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly in context with its siblings.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'richMenuId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 ('set') and resource ('rich menu as the default rich menu'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_rich_menu_default' or 'get_rich_menu_list', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

  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 'cancel_rich_menu_default' or 'get_rich_menu_list'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a rich menu must exist) or scenarios where this operation is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• get_rich_menu_listB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no rich menus exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., menu IDs, names, structures), error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool that likely returns structured data from an external service, this leaves the agent under-informed.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary 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 clearly states the action ('Get the list') and resource ('rich menus associated with your LINE Official Account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'get_message_quota' that also retrieve information, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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 prerequisites, context (e.g., before setting or deleting rich menus), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.

• cancel_rich_menu_defaultB
  3.2/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what happens when the default is canceled (does it revert to no default? does it affect existing users?), whether permissions are required, or if there are side effects. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what action occurs but lacks crucial context about effects, permissions, or what happens after cancellation. Given the complexity of modifying system defaults, more behavioral information would be helpful for safe agent usage.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description appropriately doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for this scenario is 4 since there are no parameters to document, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

  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 ('Cancel') and the resource ('default rich menu'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'set_rich_menu_default' beyond the opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify their relationship more explicitly.

  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. With a sibling tool 'set_rich_menu_default' that performs the opposite function, there's no indication of prerequisites, timing considerations, or what scenarios warrant canceling versus setting a default rich menu.

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

• push_text_messageB
  3.2/5.0
  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 the message type constraint ('plain text') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after sending (e.g., delivery confirmation). For a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 messaging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address authentication, response format, error handling, or platform-specific constraints that an agent would need to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.

  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 50% (only 'text' parameter has description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain 'userId' usage or the nested 'message' object structure, so it doesn't compensate for the schema coverage gap, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 ('Push'), resource ('text message'), target ('to a user via LINE'), and scope ('plain text messages without formatting'). It distinguishes from formatting-rich alternatives but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like 'push_flex_message' for full differentiation.

  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 when to use it ('for sending plain text messages without formatting'), suggesting alternatives exist for formatted messages. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'push_flex_message', leaving some ambiguity about usage context.

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

• get_profileB
  3.3/5.0
  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 states what information is returned but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions/authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when userId is omitted (defaults to DESTINATION_USER_ID per schema). For a user data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It lists the specific information returned without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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?

  For a simple read operation with 1 parameter (100% schema coverage) but no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is returned but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. Given the tool's low complexity, it's minimally viable but could provide more context about the operation's constraints.

  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 the userId parameter with its default behavior. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'LINE user' which provides domain context but no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Get detailed profile information of a LINE user' with specific attributes listed (display name, profile picture URL, status message, language). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on user profile retrieval rather than messaging or rich menu operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential similar tools like 'get_user' or 'get_user_info' if they existed.

  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 usage context by specifying it retrieves LINE user profiles, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication requirements) or compare with other user-related operations. The context is clear but lacks specific when/when-not instructions.

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

• broadcast_flex_messageA
  3.5/5.0
  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 it mentions the broadcast scope and layout options, it lacks critical information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a paid service, delivery guarantees, or what happens if the message fails. For a broadcast tool with significant impact, this is insufficient.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence covers purpose and capabilities, the second provides critical behavioral warning about broadcast scope. No wasted words, well-structured.

  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 broadcast tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' but misses critical 'how' details about parameter construction, authentication requirements, error handling, and response format. The warning about broadcast scope is valuable but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 1 complex nested parameter, the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It mentions bubble and carousel layouts but doesn't explain the 'message' object structure, 'altText' purpose, or how to construct the 'contents' property. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

  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 specific action ('broadcast'), the resource ('flex message via LINE'), and the target audience ('all users who have added your LINE Official Account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like push_flex_message by specifying this is a broadcast to all users rather than a targeted push.

  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 about when to use this tool (sending to all users) and implicitly distinguishes it from push_flex_message (which likely sends to specific users). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like broadcast_text_message for simpler messages.

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

• broadcast_text_messageA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the broadcast nature ('sent to all users') and plain text constraint, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, uses two efficient sentences with zero waste, and avoids redundancy. Every phrase adds value (e.g., 'without formatting', 'to all users').

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the what and who but lacks how (e.g., success/failure responses), why (use cases), and operational constraints. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a broadcast 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies a 'message' parameter but does not explain its structure or the 'text' field's semantics beyond 'plain text content'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's technical constraints.

  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 specific action ('Broadcast a simple text message'), the target resource ('via LINE to all users who have followed your LINE Official Account'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'plain text messages without formatting' (unlike broadcast_flex_message or push_flex_message).

  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 this tool ('for sending plain text messages without formatting'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., push_text_message for targeted messages). It implies a broadcast context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• get_message_quotaA
  4/5.0
  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 the tool's behavior as a read-only operation that retrieves quota data, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time or cached. The description adds basic context but misses deeper behavioral traits.

  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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second clarifies the scope. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn its place without redundancy.

  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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the type of data returned (quota and usage). However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the response format (e.g., numeric values, units). The description covers the essentials but has a minor gap in output clarity.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, earning a high score for not adding unnecessary details.

  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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('message quota and consumption of the LINE Official Account'), and scope ('monthly message limit and current usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like broadcast/push messages or rich menu operations by focusing on quota monitoring rather than message sending or UI management.

  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 usage context through 'monthly message limit and current usage,' suggesting this tool is for monitoring quota status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before sending messages to check limits) or provide exclusions. The implicit guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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