Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• led_controlC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('控制LED开关') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's a read/write operation, side effects, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks context needed for safe invocation.

  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 a single, efficient phrase ('控制LED开关') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, earning a high score for brevity.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for full understanding despite the straightforward input.

  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%, with the parameter 'state' fully documented in the schema (including enum values 'on'/'off'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description '控制LED开关' (control LED switch) states the basic function but is vague about what specific LED resource it controls. It uses a verb ('控制') and resource ('LED开关'), but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_pwm' which might also control LEDs. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or target.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_pwm'. The description implies it's for turning LEDs on/off, but there's no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. Without annotations or sibling differentiation, usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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

• get_pico_infoC
  2.8/5.0
  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. '获取' (get) implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

  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 a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but for a simple tool, this is appropriately concise.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameterless design, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (hardware specs, status, configuration?), format of response, or any behavioral constraints. For even a simple tool, more context would help the agent understand what to expect.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

  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 '获取Pico开发板信息' (Get Pico development board information) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('Pico开发板信息' - Pico development board information). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'led_control' or 'set_pwm' - those are clearly different operations, but this description doesn't clarify what specific information is retrieved versus other possible information 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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description without any explicit context.

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

• set_pwmC
  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 action is to set PWM frequency, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether this changes hardware output, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). It lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the tool fails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise ('设置PWM频率，范围0-100' - set PWM frequency, range 0-100), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and key constraint. There is no wasted text, and every part earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

  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 (a mutation operation to set PWM frequency), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential errors, or behavioral traits like whether the setting is persistent. For a tool that likely interacts with hardware or low-level systems, more context on effects and limitations 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 the 'frequency' parameter fully documented in the schema (type: integer, description: 'PWM频率值(0-100)'). The description adds the same range information ('范围0-100'), providing no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no extra param info 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 action ('设置PWM频率' - set PWM frequency) and specifies the resource (PWM), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pico_info' (which likely reads info) and 'led_control' (which might control LEDs differently), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

  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 'led_control' or other potential tools. It mentions the frequency range (0-100), which hints at valid usage contexts, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage direction.

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