Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_with_feedbackC
  2.4/5.0
  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. It mentions '请求反馈' (request feedback) but doesn't explain what this feedback entails, whether the command execution is synchronous/asynchronous, what permissions are needed, or potential side effects. For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  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 appropriately brief with clear sections (Args, Returns). However, the Args section merely lists parameter names without meaningful explanations, and the Returns section is overly vague. The structure is good but the content within sections is underdeveloped, preventing a perfect score.

  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?

  For a command execution tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what types of commands can be executed, what format the feedback takes, error handling, security implications, or return value structure. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides minimal parameter information. It lists parameter names in the Args section but offers no semantic explanation beyond what's in the titles. Parameters like 'require_confirmation' and 'language' lack context about their effects, and the description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

  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 '执行命令并请求反馈' (execute command and request feedback), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what type of command execution this involves and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'interactive_feedback' or 'create_feedback_template'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the execution context.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'interactive_feedback' or 'get_feedback_analytics'. The agent receives no help in choosing between available feedback-related tools.

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

• get_feedback_analyticsC
  2.4/5.0
  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 tool '获取反馈分析报告' (gets feedback analytics report), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the report returns in, or whether it's a computationally intensive operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is relatively concise with a clear structure (purpose, args, returns). However, the Args and Returns sections are overly terse and don't add meaningful information beyond what's already visible in the schema. The description could be more efficiently structured by integrating parameter explanations into the main text rather than using a separate Args section that merely repeats parameter names.

  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?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the analysis report contains, what format it returns, how the parameters interact, or what happens if parameters are omitted. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only parameter names and types without descriptions. The description lists the three parameters but provides no additional semantic information about what 'project_directory' should contain, what 'days' represents (past days? future days?), or what 'user_id' is used for. The parameter documentation is essentially just a restatement of the parameter names without meaningful context.

  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 '获取反馈分析报告' (get feedback analytics report), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'feedback analytics' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_with_feedback' or 'interactive_feedback'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of analysis is performed.

  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 the sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus 'execute_with_feedback' or 'interactive_feedback'. The agent would need to guess based on tool names alone.

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

• create_feedback_templateC
  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 states '创建' (create), implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is structured with sections for Args and Returns, which is helpful, but includes redundant elements like '创建结果' (creation result) that don't add value without an output schema. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate unnecessary parts.

  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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and behavioral traits, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief notes (e.g., '模板内容 (多语言支持)' for template_content), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully explain the nested object structure or provide examples, leaving gaps for the agent.

  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 verb '创建' (create) and resource '自定义反馈模板' (custom feedback template), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'execute_with_feedback' or 'interactive_feedback', which might involve feedback templates in different ways.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'execute_with_feedback' or 'get_feedback_analytics', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

• interactive_feedbackC
  2.7/5.0
  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 'enhanced interactive feedback' but doesn't explain what 'interactive' entails (e.g., user prompts, real-time responses, UI interactions). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or how feedback is processed, which is critical for a tool with many parameters and no output schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is structured with a title and parameter list, but it's not front-loaded with a clear summary of the tool's function. The 'Args' section is detailed but could be more concise, and the overall text is moderately sized without unnecessary fluff, though it could be more efficient in conveying core functionality upfront.

  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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lists parameters but doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how it interacts with users. For an 'interactive' tool with no structured output, more context on the feedback process and results 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.

  Parameters4/5

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

  The description includes an 'Args' section that lists all 9 parameters with brief explanations, adding significant meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies parameter purposes (e.g., feedback_type options, priority levels, options for multiple-choice), though some explanations remain basic (e.g., 'project_directory: project directory path'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 is an 'enhanced interactive feedback tool' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about what 'interactive feedback' actually means in practice. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'collects', 'processes', 'initiates') or distinguish from sibling tools like create_feedback_template or get_feedback_analytics. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

  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 create_feedback_template, execute_with_feedback, or get_feedback_analytics. The description lists parameters but doesn't explain the context or scenarios for invoking this tool, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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