Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• WeChat_get_access_tokenB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output fields (success, error, access_token, expires_in) and the default expires_in value (7200 seconds), but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or error handling. This is adequate but shallow.

  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 compact and includes a structured metadata block. It avoids redundancy, though the parameter explanation could be better aligned with the actual schema.

  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?

  While the output schema is declared, the description only lists output fields without detailing the actual argument format. The mismatch between the described inputs and the schema parameter makes the tool difficult to use correctly, leaving critical gaps.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema defines a single string parameter 'args', but the description separately lists AppID, AppSecret, and expires_in as if they are independent inputs. This mismatch is misleading, and the description does not explain how these values should be passed within 'args'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to provide necessary parameter meaning.

  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 states '获取微信公众号Access Token' (Get WeChat Official Account Access Token), which clearly identifies the verb (获取/get) and resource (Access Token). It is distinct from sibling tools that handle drafts and materials.

  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. While siblings are clearly different operations, there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or scenarios for using this token retrieval tool.

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

• WeChat_del_materialB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only lists inputs/outputs. It does not disclose that deletion is irrevocable, does not mention required permissions or side effects, and does not explain error conditions beyond the output field names. The output fields (success, error, errcode, errmsg) provide minimal signal but not substantive behavior.

  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 brief and organized with clear sections (description, metadata, parameter notes). It front-loads the purpose. The metadata section repeats output fields that might already exist in an output schema, but it remains compact.

  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?

  The tool has a dangerously simplistic schema (args string) that conflicts with the documented access_token/media_id inputs. The description does not clarify how to pass the parameters, nor does it warn about the irreversible nature of deletion. It also lacks guidance on obtaining access_token. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.

  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 description defines access_token as '接口凭证' (API credential) and media_id as the ID returned by WeChat_create_draft, providing meaning beyond the schema, which only has a generic 'args' string. However, it does not explain how these parameters map to the schema's 'args' field, leaving ambiguity in invocation.

  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 opens with '删除微信公众号永久素材' (Delete WeChat Official Account permanent material), which clearly states the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like WeChat_del_draft (delete draft) and WeChat_create_draft.

  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 parameter description for media_id states it is the image_media_id returned by WeChat_create_draft, implying a workflow connection. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like WeChat_del_draft, nor any exclusions.

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

• WeChat_create_draftA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses input/output fields, content constraints (<2万字符, <1M), default behavior for digest, and the access_token requirement. However, it does not describe side effects like whether existing drafts are affected or specific error behavior beyond listing 'success, error' outputs.

  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 well-structured with a purpose statement, metadata overview, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core action. Some redundancy exists (metadata list repeats parameter names), but the overall length is appropriate and every line adds value.

  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?

  The description covers all parameters and output fields, which is good for a complex tool. However, it fails to explain how the eight logical parameters relate to the single 'args' string in the schema, leaving a critical invocation ambiguity. It also omits usage guidance. These gaps affect completeness.

  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 schema is minimal with only an 'args' string and 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole documentation for parameters. It explains all 8 parameters, including optional flags, constraints, and defaults, fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

  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 explicitly states '创建微信公众号草稿' (Create WeChat Official Account draft), which is a specific verb+resource action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like WeChat_del_draft, WeChat_publish_draft, and WeChat_del_material by focusing on creation. The detailed parameter list further clarifies the 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 exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases. While the tool name and sibling names imply its role, the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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

• WeChat_del_draftA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the basic destructive action (delete) and lists input/output fields. It adds useful context that media_id refers to the draft_media_id from create_draft. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly warn about irreversibility, authorization requirements beyond access_token, or potential side effects, leaving some burden unmet.

  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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by metadata and parameter descriptions. Every piece of information earns its place, and the most important point (what it does) is 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?

  For a simple deletion tool, the description covers the essential action, input parameters, and output fields. The output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The main gap is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to call it.

  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 input schema is essentially a single 'args' string with no sub-properties, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by listing access_token and media_id and explaining their meanings, including the fact that media_id is the draft_media_id from WeChat_create_draft. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it stops short of specifying the exact JSON format inside args.

  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 action: '删除微信公众号草稿' (Delete WeChat Official Account draft). This is a specific verb+resource combination that directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, publish, or get_access_token.

  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 by noting that media_id is the draft_media_id returned by WeChat_create_draft, indicating a typical create-then-delete workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• WeChat_publish_draftA
  4/5.0
  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 lists input and output fields, including publish_id as a task ID which hints at asynchronous publishing, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or error conditions. Some behavioral context is present but not comprehensive.

  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 relatively short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a structured Metadata list. There is slight redundancy between the metadata section and the parameter explanation, but it remains clear and easy to scan.

  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 wrapper-style tool, the description covers necessary inputs and outputs, including the publish task ID. It could be improved by explicitly stating that publishing creates a task and may be asynchronous, but overall it provides sufficient context given the tool's simplicity.

  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 schema only has a generic 'args' string with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating access_token and draft_media_id with explanations and explicitly linking draft_media_id to the output of WeChat_create_draft, adding meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

  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 opens with '发布微信公众号草稿' which clearly states the action (publish) and resource (WeChat Official Account draft). It is distinct from sibling tools like create/del draft, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 parameter section mentions that draft_media_id comes from WeChat_create_draft, implying a workflow but not explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the context is somewhat implied.

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