Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_recipesA
  3.9/5.0
  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 adds that the search returns upstream source links and is scoped to local recipes, but it does not disclose result limits, ordering, error behavior, or whether the search is fuzzy/case-sensitive.

  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?

  A single sentence that immediately states the search target and return value with no filler. Efficient 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?

  With no output schema, the description gives some return information (source links) but lacks details on the result format, how limit affects the response, and how this tool relates to get_recipe. It is acceptable for a simple search tool but leaves 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?

  Schema description coverage is 67% (query and category have descriptions, limit does not). The description reiterates the query semantics but adds no additional detail about limit defaults or category usage 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 the tool's function: searching local CookLikeHOC recipes by name, ingredient, or keyword, and returning source links. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_recipe and list_categories.

  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 the tool (when you have a search term) via '按菜名、食材或关键词检索', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference sibling alternatives such as get_recipe for fetching a specific recipe.

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

• get_recipeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behaviors: it retrieves the full recipe and always includes the original upstream source link. This is meaningful context, though it does not address error cases or permissions.

  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 front-load the core purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. 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?

  For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers how to invoke it (using search_recipes path) and what to expect (full recipe plus source link). It is nearly complete, though it omits mention of failure handling.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including its source (search_recipes' relativePath). The description repeats this usage without adding new semantic details, so baseline 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 reads a complete recipe using the path returned by search_recipes, distinguishing it from sibling tools search_recipes (which searches) and list_categories (which lists categories). The verb '读取' (read) and resource '菜谱' (recipe) are specific.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs to use the path from search_recipes, implying the proper sequence: first search, then get. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions but provides clear context for when this tool should be used.

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides the key behavioral context that the tool operates on a local checkout, and that it returns categories with counts. It conveys a read-only listing operation, though it does not detail error behavior or output formatting.

  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 front-loads the action and states the scope and result. 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?

  The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. It specifies the local context and the information returned (categories and counts), making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-level details because none exist. The baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing recipe categories and counts from a local CookLikeHOC checkout. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_recipes and get_recipe, which focus on searching and fetching individual recipes.

  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 over alternatives. It implies that for category overviews you would use this tool, but no explicit usage conditions or exclusion criteria are provided.

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