Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_character_profileB
  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. It states the tool fetches and returns data in Markdown format, and mentions error handling for missing characters or failures. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, data sources, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with indentation is slightly verbose. Overall, it's efficient for its content.

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error types or data freshness. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate.

  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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that 'character_name' is '要查询的角色的中文名称' (the Chinese name of the character to query), clarifying language and context. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensation is effective, though not exhaustive (e.g., no format examples).

  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: '获取库街区上的角色档案信息并以 Markdown 格式返回' (Get character profile information from the library district and return it in Markdown format). This specifies the verb (get), resource (character profile), and output format (Markdown). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_character_info', which likely serves a similar purpose.

  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 mentions the parameter 'character_name' and what happens on success/failure, but offers no context about prerequisites, when to choose this over 'get_character_info', or any usage constraints. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

• get_artifact_infoA
  3.5/5.0
  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 returns Markdown-formatted data or error messages on failure, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'get'). For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but lacks depth.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and output format. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and output behavior. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., error conditions beyond 'not found' or 'failure'), which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'artifact_name' is the Chinese name of the artifact set to query, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Artifact Name' title. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a high score, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

  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: '获取库街区上的声骸详细信息' (get detailed information about artifacts from the library district). It specifies the verb (获取/get) and resource (声骸详细信息/artifact details), and mentions the output format (Markdown). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_character_info, which likely retrieves character information instead of artifacts.

  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 (get_character_info, get_character_profile) or clarify scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others. The only implied usage is when artifact details are needed, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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

• get_character_infoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 output format (Markdown) and error handling (returns error message if character not found or data retrieval fails), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or other operational traits.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by providing essential details like output format and error handling, though it could be more streamlined.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, output format, and error handling. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more usage guidelines to address sibling tools.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that 'character_name' must be the Chinese name of the character, clarifying language and format requirements not evident from the schema alone. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of documentation.

  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 retrieve detailed character information including skills and cultivation guides from '库街区' (likely a game or platform). It specifies the verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and resource '角色详细信息' (character details), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_character_profile' which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 like 'get_character_profile' or 'get_artifact_info'. It mentions the parameter 'character_name' but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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