Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_sessionsB
  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 disclose behavior. It only states 'list sessions' without detailing what information is returned (metadata vs content), pagination, or any side effects, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes redundant trigger words that slightly reduce efficiency. Still, it's well-structured for its length.

  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 has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fails to mention what the list returns (e.g., session metadata, count limits, or ordering). This lack of completeness hinders an agent's 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply noting support for IDE and date filtering, which is already clear from parameter descriptions.

  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: listing sessions, with specific trigger phrases and filtering options (by IDE and date). It distinguishes from siblings like search_sessions by implying a simpler list operation.

  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 provides trigger words and when to call (e.g., 'view session list'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like search_sessions for more extensive queries.

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

• read_sessionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('读取并显示') but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or that it is read-only, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 concise with one sentence and trigger words, front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate sections) for clarity.

  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 a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and five sibling tools, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It mentions returning full content, but lacks an explicit read-only warning.

  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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema is informative ('full path from list_sessions'). The main description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 that the tool reads and displays the complete content of a specified session, with trigger words that differentiate it from sibling tools like delete_session or save_session.

  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 explicit trigger words and usage examples (e.g., 'open this session', 'view session content') that guide when to invoke the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

• delete_sessionA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description notes that the deletion is permanent ('永久删除'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects.

  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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a helpful list of trigger words. Every element serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.

  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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it and what it does. It could include more about error cases, but it is sufficiently complete for typical 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema is sufficient. The tool description does not add further meaning to the file_path parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 verb 'delete' and resource 'session', and specifies when to invoke based on user phrases. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sessions, read_session, etc.

  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 lists trigger words for invocation, providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though siblings are implicitly differentiated.

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

• search_sessionsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses case-insensitive search across both filename and content, but lacks details on pagination, result limits, or what happens if no matches found. The core behavior is clear but not exhaustive.

  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 concise with only a few sentences, front-loading the purpose and trigger phrases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

  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?

  The description covers trigger phrases, search scope, and case-insensitivity. It also hints at base_dir fallback logic. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of sessions, matched snippets). Given no output schema, this gap slightly reduces completeness.

  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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description reinforces the keyword parameter's case-insensitivity and search scope, but adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

  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 '搜索会话' (search sessions) and provides specific trigger phrases for invocation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_session, list_sessions, read_session, save_session by focusing on searching across files and content.

  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 includes explicit trigger phrases like '搜索包含 XX 的会话' and '查找关于 XX 的对话', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the usage context is strong.

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

• save_sessionA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool saves markdown files with automatic categorization, and mandates full conversation content. It does not mention file overwrite behavior, authorization needs, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral 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, pre-steps, prohibitions, examples, and trigger words. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose; the pre-steps and prohibitions could be condensed without losing clarity.

  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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage: content formatting, directory resolution, and prohibited actions. It lacks explicit info on return values or confirmation of success, but for a save operation this is acceptable.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond schema, especially for 'content' with detailed format requirements, examples, and prohibited patterns. It also explains fallback logic for 'base_dir'.

  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 the tool saves AI conversation as a Markdown file, auto-categorized by IDE and date. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools (delete, list, read, search) with a specific verb and resource.

  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?

  Provides trigger words for when to call (e.g., 'save current session') and explicit prohibited behavior (no summaries, no omissions). However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use or compare to alternatives, though siblings are distinct.

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