Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-world-weatherC
  2.9/5.0
  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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a weather API tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate 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 - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality immediately apparent.

  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 (weather API with geographic coordinates), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what weather data is returned, units of measurement, temporal scope of forecasts, or any behavioral characteristics. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for effective tool 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 schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters (latitude, longitude) well-documented in the schema with ranges and descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no 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 '获取全世界的天气预报' (Get worldwide weather forecast) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('天气预报' - weather forecast). It distinguishes itself by specifying '全世界的' (worldwide), indicating global coverage. However, with no sibling tools, differentiation from alternatives isn't demonstrated, preventing a perfect score.

  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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or limitations. This lack of usage guidance is a significant gap for effective tool selection.

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