Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• apifox_environment_infoC
  2.8/5.0
  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 it indicates this is a read operation ('获取' - get/retrieve), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if no environment restrictions exist. The description is minimal and leaves many 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with additional context about what 'environment management' entails in this specific system.

  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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'environment management' means in this context, what types of restrictions might be documented, or what format the information will be returned in. Given the lack of structured data elsewhere, the description should provide more context about what users can expect from this tool.

  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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though there are no parameters to describe). The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents what's needed (nothing).

  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 '获取环境管理功能的限制说明' (Get environment management function restriction descriptions) states what the tool does in general terms - it retrieves information about limitations for environment management. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific nature of these 'restrictions' and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings like apifox_api_info or apifox_project_info, which likely also provide informational content about different aspects of the system.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of specific scenarios where one would need environment restriction information, nor does it indicate what other tools might be more appropriate for different types of information needs. The user must infer usage context 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.

• apifox_folder_infoC
  2.8/5.0
  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 indicates this is a read operation (获取/get), it doesn't describe what happens when invoked - whether it requires authentication, returns structured data or plain text, has rate limits, or what happens if no folders exist. 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While it could be more specific about what '限制说明' (restriction instructions) entails, the phrasing is appropriately concise for what it communicates.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should provide more complete context about what information is returned and when this tool is valuable. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered: What format are the restrictions in? Are they organizational policies or technical limits? What authentication is required? For a tool that presumably returns important configuration information, this is insufficient.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than trying to describe non-existent inputs. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

  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 '获取文件夹管理功能的限制说明' (Get folder management function restriction instructions) states what the tool does in general terms - retrieving restriction information about folder management. However, it doesn't specify what kind of restrictions (size limits, permission constraints, etc.) or what format the information comes in. It distinguishes from siblings like 'apifox_project_info' or 'apifox_api_info' by focusing on folders, but remains somewhat vague about the exact nature of the information retrieved.

  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 (like needing folder access), when this information would be useful (before creating folders, when encountering errors), or what other tools might provide related information. The user must infer usage context 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.

• apifox_import_export_infoC
  2.8/5.0
  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 only states that it retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what format the information is returned in. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple informational tool, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

  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. It does not explain what the return values are, the format of the information, or any behavioral context. For a tool that retrieves functional information, more details about the output and usage context are needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for any gaps.

  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 '获取导入导出功能的说明信息' (Get import/export function description information) states a clear purpose (get information about import/export features) but is somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'apifox_api_info' or 'apifox_project_info' by focusing on import/export functionality, but lacks specificity about the verb and resource scope.

  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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. There is no explicit comparison with sibling tools like 'apifox_check_access' or 'apifox_environment_info'.

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

• apifox_schema_infoC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions '获取' (get), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or unstructured data, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese: '获取数据模型管理功能的限制说明'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

  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 no input schema (0 parameters) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure of restriction info), behavioral aspects like authentication needs, and how it fits among siblings. For a tool that presumably provides important limitation data, the description should offer more context to guide effective use, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

  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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the input schema. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead about parameters and matches the schema's indication of none.

  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 '获取数据模型管理功能的限制说明' (Get restrictions/limitations for data model management functionality) states a purpose but is somewhat vague. It specifies a verb ('获取' - get) and a resource ('限制说明' - restriction explanations), but doesn't clarify what type of restrictions (rate limits, feature limitations, usage quotas) or what '数据模型管理功能' (data model management functionality) precisely entails. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., apifox_api_info, apifox_project_info) by focusing on restrictions rather than general info, but the scope remains ambiguous.

  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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given siblings like apifox_check_access or apifox_import_export_info, there's no indication of when to choose this tool over others for related queries about limitations or access. The lack of usage context leaves the agent guessing about its application.

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

• apifox_check_accessB
  3.1/5.0
  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. The description only states what the tool does ('检查当前Token的访问权限') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: what permissions are checked, what the response format looks like, whether it makes network calls, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid tokens. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides only basic purpose information, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'access permissions' means in this context, what format the results take, or what agents should do with the information. For a permission-checking tool that could be critical for security/access decisions, more context is needed despite the simple parameterless design.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. According to scoring rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters that don't exist.

  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 '检查当前Token的访问权限' (Check current token's access permissions) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('访问权限' - access permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'apifox_api_info' or 'apifox_project_info' by focusing on token access verification rather than general information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'apifox_check_project_access' which might be a more specific variant.

  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 when this tool should be called (e.g., before making API calls, for debugging), what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'apifox_check_project_access'. Without any usage context, agents must infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• apifox_check_project_accessB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '检查' (check) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, what format the results will be in, or whether there are any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.

  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 the tool's relative simplicity (single parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does at a high level, but doesn't provide enough context about when to use it versus alternatives, what the behavior entails, or what results to expect. For a permission-checking tool with no output schema, more guidance would be helpful.

  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 'projectId' clearly documented in the schema as '项目ID' (project ID). The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

  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 '检查指定项目的访问权限' clearly states the tool's purpose as checking access permissions for a specified project, providing a specific verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('指定项目的访问权限' - specified project's access permissions). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'apifox_check_access', which appears to be a more general access check tool.

  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 specific project access check should be used instead of the more general 'apifox_check_access' tool or other sibling tools. The description simply states what the tool does without providing usage context.

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

• apifox_test_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  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. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with additional context about when to use it.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, return format) and usage guidelines. With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more complete operational information.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools without parameters.

  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 as '获取测试用例管理功能的限制说明' (Get limitation descriptions for test case management functionality). It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('测试用例管理功能的限制说明' - limitation descriptions for test case management), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apifox_api_info' or 'apifox_project_info', which appear to provide different types of information.

  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 prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'apifox_check_access' or 'apifox_import_export_info'. The user must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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

• apifox_api_infoB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

  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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool and front-loads the key action ('获取') and target ('使用说明和限制信息'). Every word earns its place.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what '使用说明和限制信息' entails, but it meets the basic threshold for such a simple tool.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter information is required beyond what the schema provides.

  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 as '获取Apifox开放API的使用说明和限制信息' (Get usage instructions and limitation information for Apifox Open API). It uses specific verbs ('获取' - get) and resources ('使用说明和限制信息' - usage instructions and limitation information), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apifox_import_export_info' or 'apifox_schema_info' which might also provide informational 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. It doesn't mention any context for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools that appear informational (e.g., 'apifox_project_info', 'apifox_schema_info'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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

• apifox_project_infoB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether this operation might be expensive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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 with the essential information.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what specific 'MCP功能说明和限制信息' includes, and without annotations or output schema, the agent has no insight into the response format or behavioral constraints. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

  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 ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'retrieve') and the resource ('Apifox MCP功能说明和限制信息' meaning 'Apifox MCP feature descriptions and limitation information'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apifox_api_info' or 'apifox_import_export_info' which might retrieve different types of information.

  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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools that retrieve different types of Apifox information, this is a significant gap in helping the agent choose correctly.

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