Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-standard-docsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions the prerequisite and does not disclose what 'detailed content' includes, how the topic filter or maxTokens affect results, any return format, or error scenarios. For a get operation, more details would be expected.

  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 sentence that conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and effectively front-loaded.

  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?

  While there is no output schema, the parameter schema is fully covered, and the tool's complexity is low. The description provides the crucial prerequisite context. However, it could add a brief note on what the returned content looks like or how topic filtering behaves, but the current level is adequate given the schema richness.

  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?

  All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains each parameter sufficiently, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb and resource: get detailed content of a specified standard document. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that the standard ID must first be obtained from resolve-standard-id, which differentiates its role from the 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  Provides an explicit prerequisite: must use resolve-standard-id first to get the standard ID. This gives clear context for when to use the tool and implies the ID resolution step, though it does not explicitly mention list-standards as an alternative for discovering standards.

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

• resolve-standard-idA
  3.7/5.0
  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. It mentions the prerequisite positioning and that it retrieves an ID, but does not explain response format, edge-case behavior (no matches, multiple matches), or whether the operation has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotations.

  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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the core action and the critical usage prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

  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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context about the need to call this tool first. However, it lacks clarity on return value specifics (single ID vs list) and potential failure modes, which would make it more complete.

  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% coverage with a clear description of the 'query' parameter, including examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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's function: searching development specification documents by keywords and retrieving the specification ID. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting this must be called before obtaining specific content, which distinguishes it from get-standard-docs and list-standards.

  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 usage context: 'Before obtaining specific specification content, you must call this tool to get the specification ID.' This establishes a clear sequencing requirement relative to the sibling tools, though it doesn't name the alternatives explicitly.

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

• list-standardsA
  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 full burden. It discloses that the tool lists and filters, but it does not mention return format, error handling, or whether the filter is case-sensitive or exact match. For a simple read-only list, the core behavior is transparent enough.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the optional filter. 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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention the output structure or that the list includes both categories and documents, but the current description is adequate for a straightforward browsing action.

  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 describes the 'category' parameter with allowed values (frontend, backend, custom), giving 100% coverage. The description only says '可按分类过滤' without adding new detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 lists all available standards categories and documents ('列出所有可用的开发规范分类和文档') and mentions filtering by category. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-standard-docs (which retrieves specific docs) and resolve-standard-id (which resolves IDs).

  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: it's for listing available standards with optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over get-standard-docs or resolve-standard-id. No exclusions are mentioned.

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