Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_daily_reportC
  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 and sends reports, implying a write/send operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what '发送' entails (e.g., direct message, group chat). For a tool with no annotations and a mutation action, this is a significant gap in 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 sentence in Chinese: '生成并发送GitLab提交记录的日报到企业微信'. It's front-loaded with the core action and destination, with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place by specifying the what, from where, and to where.

  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's complexity (generating and sending reports, implying mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how it's formatted, success/failure responses, or integration details. For a tool with behavioral implications and no structured support, more context is needed to be fully 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter details (e.g., 'username' is optional with a default, 'date' is required in YYYY-MM-DD format, 'projectId' is optional for filtering). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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: '生成并发送GitLab提交记录的日报到企业微信' (generate and send daily GitLab commit reports to WeChat). It specifies the verb ('生成并发送'), resource ('GitLab提交记录的日报'), and destination ('企业微信'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gitlab_commits' or 'send_to_wechat', which might handle parts of this process separately.

  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 (e.g., 'get_gitlab_commits' for just fetching commits or 'send_to_wechat' for sending messages), prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied from the purpose but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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

• get_gitlab_commitsC
  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 retrieves commit records but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied by '获取' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, how results are formatted (e.g., list of commits with details), or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence in Chinese: '获取GitLab用户在指定日期的代码提交记录'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration. This makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

  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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, authentication needs), output format (what commit data is returned), and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more to help the agent invoke the tool correctly, which it doesn't do adequately.

  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 adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It mentions 'GitLab用户' (GitLab user) and '指定日期' (specified date), which align with the 'username' and 'date' parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'username' is optional with a default, 'date' is required in YYYY-MM-DD format, 'projectId' is optional for filtering). The description doesn't provide additional insights like example values or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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GitLab用户在指定日期的代码提交记录' (Get GitLab user's code commit records for a specified date). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get), resource ('代码提交记录' - code commit records), and scope ('GitLab用户' - GitLab user, '指定日期' - specified date). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_daily_report' or 'send_to_wechat', which appear to serve different purposes (report generation and messaging).

  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, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for daily summaries vs. real-time monitoring or how it relates to 'generate_daily_report'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

• send_to_wechatC
  2.9/5.0
  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 action '发送消息' (send message), implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. 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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 a message-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, response format), usage context, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

  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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('message' and 'messageType'), including enum values and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 '发送消息到企业微信' clearly states the action (send) and target (WeChat Enterprise), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_daily_report' or 'get_gitlab_commits', which are unrelated communication tools, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what kind of messages it sends.

  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 or any context for its application. It lacks information about prerequisites, target audience (e.g., specific WeChat groups or users), or scenarios where it's appropriate, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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