Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lookup_codeB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It adds the allowed values for kind and the return format, but does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, or error scenarios. The behavior is partially disclosed but incomplete.

  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 very concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary details without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for each parameter).

  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 complexity is low, but with 0% schema coverage, the description should fully cover parameter behavior. It handles kind but not query. The output schema exists but the description already mentions the return format. Overall, it is adequate but not complete.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'kind' parameter (possible values) but does not explain the 'query' parameter at all. This is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters.

  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 tool's purpose: to look up 104 job category/area codes. It specifies the kind parameter values ('jobcat' or 'area') and the return format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_detail and search_jobs.

  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 the tool is for code lookup when you need job category or area codes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is minimal but sufficient for a simple lookup.

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

• search_jobsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that area/jobcat are converted from Chinese names, ambiguous inputs return suggestions, salary_min sorts rather than filters, and '待遇面議' jobs may have actual salary in detail. However, it does not cover behavior for other parameters like 'remote', 'is_new', etc., leaving gaps.

  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 clear sections: purpose, area/jobcat handling, sort behavior, and salary notes. It front-loads the main purpose. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value.

  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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (only mentions detail_id) and omits many parameters. The salary note, though helpful, does not fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for area, jobcat, sort, and salary_min (explaining conversion, suggestions, and sorting behavior). However, 8 of 12 parameters (e.g., keyword, job_type, exp_years) are not described, so the compensation is partial.

  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 '搜尋 104 職缺' (search 104 job openings), specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by noting that the 'detail_id' from results can be used with 'get_job_detail', and 'lookup_code' is a separate tool for code lookup.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides context on when to use this tool (searching jobs) and references 'get_job_detail' for detailed info. It explains sorting behavior and salary filter limitations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for other parameters.

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

• get_job_detailA
  4.2/5.0
  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 the content returned (職務說明、條件、薪資、地點) but does not mention any behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. This is adequate for a read operation but could be more transparent.

  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 two sentences: one clearly stating the tool's function and the second explaining the parameter source. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and where the input comes from. It could be more explicit about the return format, but listing the content areas (job description, conditions, etc.) provides sufficient context.

  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 parameter 'detail_id' has 0% schema coverage, meaning the schema provides no description. The tool's description compensates by explaining that the ID comes from 'search_jobs' results, adding crucial semantic context beyond the raw schema. It does not specify format or constraints, but the origin is valuable.

  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 it retrieves full content of a single job listing, specifying details like job description, conditions, salary, and location. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_jobs', which lists jobs, 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states that the 'detail_id' comes from 'search_jobs' results, providing clear context for when to use this tool (after a search). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond the implied dependency.

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