Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fileOperationC
  2.6/5.0
  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 mentions operations like delete, rename, read, write, and image compression, implying both read and write capabilities, but doesn't detail critical behaviors such as permission requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens during destructive operations like delete. For a multi-operation tool with potential mutations, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists key operations without unnecessary fluff. It's front-loaded with the main actions, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping related operations. There's no wasted text, making it concise, but it lacks depth which affects completeness.

  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 with 8 parameters, multiple operations (including destructive ones like delete), and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, error conditions, or how operations interact. For a tool handling file operations with varied actions, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  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 schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing operation types and mentioning image compression, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like parameter interactions or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

  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 performs operations on files in the FILE_PATH directory, listing specific actions like delete, rename, read, write, and image compression. However, it's vague about the exact scope (e.g., 'fileOperation' is generic) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'checkImage' or 'getFoodMenu', which might have overlapping or related functions. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity in 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkImage' or 'getFoodMenu'. It lists operations but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if 'compressImage' is preferred over other image-related tools or when to choose specific operations. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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

• checkImageC
  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 checks compliance but doesn't explain what '合规' (compliant) means, what standards are used, whether it's a read-only or mutation operation, potential side effects, or response behavior. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

  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: '检查在线图片内容是否合规'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

  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 compliance-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '合规' entails, what the output might look like (e.g., pass/fail, details), or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'imgUrl' documented as '需要检查的图片URL' (URL of the image to check). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter 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 as '检查在线图片内容是否合规' (check if online image content is compliant). It specifies the verb '检查' (check) and the resource '在线图片内容' (online image content), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fileOperation' or 'getFoodMenu', which are unrelated, so it doesn't fully address sibling distinction.

  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 contexts for usage. While sibling tools are unrelated, the lack of any usage context or comparison leaves the agent without direction on applicability.

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

• getFoodMenuC
  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 'gets' a recipe, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

  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: '获取菜品的菜谱(制作方法)' ('Get the recipe (preparation method) for a dish'). It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it highly concise and easy to parse for an agent.

  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 single-parameter query tool), the description is minimal. With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. While the purpose is clear, the lack of additional context makes it incomplete for effective agent use, especially in scenarios requiring nuanced understanding of the tool's operation.

  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 'foodTitle' documented as '需要查询的菜品名称' ('name of the dish to query'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats, examples, or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  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 as '获取菜品的菜谱(制作方法)' which translates to 'Get the recipe (preparation method) for a dish.' This specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('recipe for a dish'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'checkImage' or 'fileOperation' since they operate on different domains, but the description itself is unambiguous about its own function.

  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, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. With sibling tools like 'checkImage' and 'fileOperation' that might handle related data (e.g., images of food or file operations on recipes), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without context for selection.

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