Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_sfc_template_clientC
  2.3/5.0
  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. It mentions downloading files to the current directory, which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify what happens if files already exist, whether this requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that presumably creates files, this is inadequate 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is brief but suffers from redundancy (providing both Chinese and English versions saying essentially the same thing). While not excessively wordy, it's not optimally structured - the bilingual approach adds length without adding clarity. The information could be more efficiently presented in a single language with clearer intent.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest this is part of a code generation system, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the templates contain, what 'transform sfc' means, or how this tool differs from generate_sfc_client. The user is left guessing about the tool's role in the broader context.

  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 'dir' documented as 'workspace dir'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions '当前目录下' (current directory) which might imply something about the 'dir' parameter, but this is ambiguous rather than clarifying. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states '下载转换 sfc / vue 列表的模板文件当前目录下 / Download the transform sfc template files', which is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'generate_sfc_template_client' in different words. While it mentions downloading template files for SFC/Vue transformation, it doesn't specify what transformation occurs or what the templates are for, making the purpose vague rather than specific.

  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 its siblings (generate_api_client, generate_sfc_client). There's no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• generate_sfc_clientC
  2.5/5.0
  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. It mentions 'For file only returns vue sfc pages' which suggests a file generation behavior, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or what happens when generation fails. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is relatively concise but poorly structured. It mixes languages (Chinese and English) without clear separation, and the example about 'file only returns' feels tacked on rather than integrated. While not verbose, the structure could be improved for better readability and information hierarchy.

  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 code generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated component looks like, what template features are supported, error handling, or success criteria. The example about 'default file name: template.js' adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for effective tool use.

  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 already documents both parameters ('source' and 'dir') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 states the tool '生成 vue sfc 组件页面 / Generate vue sfc component page' which indicates it creates Vue single-file components. However, it's vague about the specific resource being generated (just 'component page') and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'generate_sfc_template_client' which likely generates templates rather than components. The description provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

  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 tool is appropriate versus 'generate_api_client' or 'generate_sfc_template_client', nor any prerequisites or context for usage. The example about file returns is operational rather than guidance about tool selection.

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

• generate_api_clientC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a TypeScript API client but doesn't explain what 'generate' entails (e.g., creates files, outputs code, requires write permissions), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, clear sentence: 'Generate TypeScript API client from Swagger/OpenAPI specification.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 of generating code from specifications, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the tool outputs (e.g., files, code snippets), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

  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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('source' and 'dir') with descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate TypeScript API client from Swagger/OpenAPI specification.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('TypeScript API client'), and source format ('Swagger/OpenAPI specification'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_sfc_client' or 'generate_sfc_template_client', which appear to be related but distinct generation 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this generation method is preferred. Without such context, users must infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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