Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lark_chat_sessionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'create group and bind' but does not explain what 'bind' entails, nor does it address permissions, side effects, or return behavior. For a tool with create and list actions, more detail is needed.

  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 a single, concise line that efficiently lists all actions. It is front-loaded with the tool purpose. Some may prefer more structure, but it is not verbose and 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?

  Given the complexity (three actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks return value information, error handling hints, and differentiation from sibling tools. The 'bind' concept is left undefined. More context is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 sufficiently documents parameters. The tool description adds the context that 'name' is required for create and 'query' for find, but this is already implied by the schema descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond 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 is for Feishu single chat sessions and lists three distinct actions (list, find, create) with brief explanations. Specific verbs ('list', 'search', 'create') and resources ('groups') are provided, giving a clear purpose. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from named sibling tools.

  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 is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (lark_chat_progress, etc.) or when to choose among the three actions. The description simply lists the actions without contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action names alone.

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

• lark_chat_streamB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the basic lifecycle (open, append, close) but lacks details on side effects, destructive actions, auth requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the schema.

  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 very concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main idea. However, the phrasing is somewhat cryptic and in Chinese, which slightly reduces clarity for English agents.

  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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the relationship with sibling tools (except watch), failure modes, and the overall workflow. Leaves many questions unanswered.

  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 base score is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly references action and stream_id. No improvement beyond baseline.

  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 states the tool is for streaming cards (CardKit) with actions append and close, and mentions watch for stream_id. It distinguishes from watch but not from other siblings like progress or session. The purpose is clear but not fully explicit.

  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: 'watch 已开卡时用返回的 stream_id' indicates it's for after watch opens a card. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides when-not-to-use conditions.

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

• lark_chat_progressA
  3.7/5.0
  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 effectively discloses the lifecycle: first step opens, subsequent appends, done closes. It also mentions stream_id to avoid duplicate cards and reset behavior. However, it does not cover prerequisites or side effects.

  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 a single sentence that delivers key points upfront. It is efficient with no wasted words, though slightly informal. It earns a high score for being concise yet informative.

  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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main use case and lifecycle. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or expected input formats. It is adequate but not thorough.

  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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact in the flow (e.g., stream_id prevents duplicate cards, reset closes old progress). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

  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: to report progress step by step when modifying code. It explains the behavior: first step opens a streaming card, subsequent steps append, and done=true closes. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the context implies it is for progress updates in a chat environment.

  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 a context ('when changing code') for usage but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools are not compared, so an agent might not know when to choose this over others like lark_chat_session.

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

• lark_chat_watchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses blocking, 30s max poll, auto re-watch, probe mechanism with clear and timeout_ms, and guide in response. Minor omission of error handling.

  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?

  Four sentences covering key points without redundancy. Could be more structured but retains essential information efficiently.

  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 no output schema and complex behavior, description covers core flow: setup, blocking wait, timeout handling, probe usage. Lacks error scenarios but sufficient for correct invocation.

  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 coverage is 100%; description adds modest context (e.g., timeout_ms as expected total wait, clear as clear pending queue). But mostly restates schema with slight elaboration.

  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 blocks waiting for new messages in a single group chat, mentions prerequisites (session/find, watch binding), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying '单群' (single group) and blocking behavior.

  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?

  Describes when to use (after session/find, or with chat_id), timeout behavior (auto re-watch), and probe usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use versus sibling tools like lark_chat_stream.

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