Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_stored_articlesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ordering ('newest first'), but lacks info on safety (read-only), authentication needs, side effects, or rate limits. Minimal beyond purpose.

  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?

  One concise sentence with verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted words.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't cover pagination (limit/offset) or with_body behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to use correctly.

  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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions) and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (limit, offset, with_body, fakeid). Only fakeid is implied. No added value for agent invocation.

  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 verb 'List', resource 'articles already stored locally', and unique scope 'for a given fakeid, newest first'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_articles_page and crawl_incremental.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings. The description only implies usage for listing stored articles by fakeid, but does not mention alternatives or context like search_account.

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

• list_articles_pageA
  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 that metadata is upserted into a local SQLite store and bodies are not fetched. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive beyond upsert.

  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 short and front-loaded: two sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds value, stating purpose, usage pattern, and a caveat about bodies.

  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 tool with 3 params, no output schema, and mutation, the description covers the basic usage pattern and side effect (metadata storage). It lacks parameter details, return value description, and error handling. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 does not explain what fakeid represents or clarify begin and count beyond their names. The usage pattern implies begin increments by count, but no formal descriptions are given.

  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 'Fetch one page of articles for a given fakeid and store metadata.' This is a specific verb+resource action, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like fetch_article (which fetches single article body) and crawl_incremental (incremental crawl).

  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 explicit guidance: 'Use this for a first-time full crawl: call repeatedly with begin += count until the returned articles list is empty.' It also clarifies that bodies are not fetched here, helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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

• search_accountA
  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 full burden. It states that the tool searches by name and returns candidates with fakeid, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as ranking, pagination, or the possibility of multiple matches. This is minimally adequate.

  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 efficient sentences plus a usage hint. No extraneous information, every sentence serves a purpose (purpose and usage guidance).

  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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output usage. It lacks mention of potential multiple candidates or ranking, but for a search tool, the core information is present.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is the account name and implies 'limit' controls result count (default 5). However, it does not describe 'limit' explicitly or provide format details, so only partial compensation.

  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 verb 'Search', the resource 'WeChat Official Account', and the key output 'fakeid'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings that consume fakeid, like list_articles, by specifying the returned value's role.

  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 explicitly instructs to use the returned fakeid for list_articles and crawl_incremental, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

• crawl_incrementalA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: anti-detection mechanisms (page size variation, jittered delays, pauses), work hours gating, and stopping condition. Contradictions none.

  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 fairly concise and well-structured, with purpose first followed by details. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more compact. No 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 complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers the core functionality, work hours, and anti-detection. However, it lacks details on return format or what happens on errors, which would enhance completeness.

  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 explicitly explains override_work_hours and partially explains max_pages (stopping condition), but does not describe fakeid or delay_seconds. Some parameters are hinted but not fully detailed.

  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 purpose: pulling only newer articles than what is stored locally. This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_article (single article), list_articles_page (non-incremental listing), and list_stored_articles (already stored).

  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 implies when to use this tool (incremental updates) and provides context about work hours gate and override. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it and does not name alternative siblings for specific cases.

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

• fetch_articleA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: parsing to Markdown and conditional caching. It mentions that setting save=True writes back if the article exists. It could further clarify behavior for save=False or when the article is not found, but the provided details are sufficient.

  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 two sentences and a code block. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter details.

  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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essentials: the task, URL constraint, and caching behavior. It lacks details on error handling or output format, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: it explains that 'url' must be a specific type of WeChat link and that 'save' controls caching behavior. This goes beyond the schema's type definitions.

  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 action: fetching an article's full body, parsing to Markdown, and optionally caching. It specifies the required URL format (mp.weixin.qq.com/s/...), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crawl_incremental or list_articles_page.

  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 (to fetch a single article) and includes a specific URL constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools offer natural differentiation.

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

• quota_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only backend API calls count and public article reading is excluded, offering good behavioral context beyond the tool's 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two sentences are front-loaded with the main purpose followed by clarifying details. No wasted words.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what is tracked and the counting rules, making it complete.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist.

  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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('API call usage against daily safety cap'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like crawl_incremental or fetch_article which perform different actions.

  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 clarifies which calls count (searchbiz + appmsg) and that reading public articles does not count, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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