Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• rednote_analyze_contentD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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. The description '分析内容' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what permissions might be required, rate limits, or what the output format might be. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While technically concise with just two characters, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, and this description doesn't earn its place at all.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description '分析内容' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what analysis is performed, what the output looks like, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For an analysis tool with this level of complexity and no structured support, the description fails to provide necessary 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%, with both parameters ('content' and 'analysis_type') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '分析内容' (analyze content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'rednote_analyze_content' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of analysis is performed, what resources are involved, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'rednote_search_notes' or 'rednote_get_trending_topics'. The purpose remains vague without additional context.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from sibling tools that also deal with content (like search_notes or get_trending_topics). This leaves the agent with no directional information.

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

• rednote_get_trending_topicsD
  1.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 but offers none. It doesn't describe what 'trending' means (e.g., based on views, likes, recency), whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what the output format might be, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description fails to add any behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While concise with just four characters, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too minimal to be helpful - it lacks necessary context and structure. A single phrase doesn't earn its place when it fails to provide adequate guidance for tool selection and use.

  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 apparent complexity (fetching trending topics with filtering parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trending topics' are, how they're determined, what the response contains, or how to interpret results. For a tool with parameters and no structured output documentation, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

  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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema documents both parameters ('category' and 'limit') with descriptions, default values, and constraints, so the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '获取热门话题' (Get trending topics) states a basic purpose but is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'rednote_get_trending_topics' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'trending topics' means in this context (e.g., trending notes, discussions, or content), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'rednote_search_notes' or 'rednote_analyze_content'.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  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's no mention of when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for discovering popular content vs. searching for specific notes), what context it serves, or any prerequisites. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• rednote_get_user_infoC
  2.4/5.0
  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 but provides minimal information. '获取用户信息' implies a read operation but doesn't specify what kind of information is returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise at just three Chinese characters ('获取用户信息'), which translates to 'Get user information'. There is zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, the description is perfectly front-loaded and every character serves its purpose.

  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 that this is a user information retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the contextual information is inadequate. The description doesn't explain what kind of user information is returned, how it differs from sibling tools, or what the response format looks like. For a tool that presumably returns structured user data, more context would be helpful for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'user_id' clearly documented as accepting either user ID or username. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '获取用户信息' (Get user information) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'rednote_get_user_info'. It provides a generic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what type of user information is retrieved or how it differs from sibling tools like 'rednote_get_user_notes' which also deals with user data. The purpose is clear at a basic level but doesn't distinguish this tool from 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools dealing with user data (rednote_get_user_notes) and note retrieval (rednote_get_note, rednote_search_notes), but the description offers no context about when this specific user information tool is appropriate versus those other options. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are mentioned.

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

• rednote_get_noteC
  2.7/5.0
  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. '获取笔记详情' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what '详情' (details) encompasses. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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 phrase ('获取笔记详情') that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

  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 effective tool use. It doesn't explain what '详情' includes (e.g., note content, metadata, attachments), how errors are handled, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior and results.

  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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema fully documents both parameters: 'note_id' as the required note identifier and 'include_comments' as an optional boolean flag. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '获取笔记详情' (Get note details) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('笔记详情' - note details), establishing the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'rednote_get_user_notes' (which likely lists multiple notes) or 'rednote_search_notes' (which searches notes), leaving the scope vague. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this single-note retrieval from other note-related 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 doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a specific note by ID (as opposed to 'rednote_get_user_notes' for listing notes or 'rednote_search_notes' for searching). There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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

• rednote_get_user_notesC
  2.7/5.0
  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 implies a read operation ('获取' - get) but doesn't specify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (suggested by the 'cursor' parameter), or what the output format is. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise with a single phrase ('获取用户笔记'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple retrieval tool, this brevity is appropriate, though it may sacrifice clarity. Every part of the description directly states the purpose without redundancy.

  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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, safety), usage context, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it effectively. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context is lacking for a tool with multiple parameters and 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (user_id, limit, cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'cursor' enables pagination or typical use cases for 'limit'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '获取用户笔记' (Get user notes) states a clear verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('用户笔记' - user notes), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of notes or how they're retrieved, and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'rednote_get_note' (likely for a single note) or 'rednote_search_notes' (likely for broader searches). It's adequate but vague.

  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 (e.g., needing a valid user_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'rednote_get_note' (for single notes) or 'rednote_search_notes' (for filtered searches). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose correctly among similar tools.

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

• rednote_search_notesC
  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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what format/search scope the results cover. '搜索' implies querying, but no further behavioral context is provided.

  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 maximally concise with a single 4-character phrase that directly conveys the core function. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on search scope, or how this differs from other note-retrieval tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, enums, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 '搜索小红书笔记' clearly states the action (搜索/search) and resource (小红书笔记/Xiaohongshu notes), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like rednote_get_note or rednote_get_user_notes, which also retrieve note-related content.

  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's no mention of when this search function is appropriate compared to rednote_get_note (for specific notes), rednote_get_user_notes (for user-specific notes), or rednote_get_trending_topics (for trending content).

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