Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_coursesC
  2.8/5.0
  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. It mentions the JSESSIONID parameter but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of courses). The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

  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 brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It uses minimal sentences without unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the parameter but fails to address key aspects like return values (what format courses are returned in), error handling, or authentication context beyond the parameter name. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 explicitly documents the single parameter (JSESSIONID) and its type (str), adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and it's fully explained in the description, this compensates well for the schema gap. No additional parameter details are needed.

  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 '获取课程名称与ID' (Get course names and IDs), which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('courses'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_question, submit_question) or specify scope (e.g., all courses vs. user-specific). The purpose is understandable but lacks 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication context) or compare it to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the parameter (JSESSIONID) alone.

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

• get_questionC
  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. It states it 'gets' questions, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements (JSESSIONID suggests auth needed), rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter listings. It uses minimal sentences without unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading more critical information like authentication needs or output format.

  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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements (implied by JSESSIONID but not explained), expected output format, error handling, and how it differs from siblings. For a tool in this context, more detail 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.

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by listing parameters with brief explanations (e.g., '用户的JSESSIONID' for JSESSIONID, '课程ID' for course_id), which helps clarify what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

  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 '获取' (get) and resource '课程题目' (course questions), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_question', which would require a 5. The purpose is clear but lacks 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 like 'get_courses' or 'submit_question'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It merely lists parameters without usage context.

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

• submit_questionC
  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. It mentions that the tool returns answer results, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though JSESSIONID is a parameter), potential side effects (e.g., whether submission is final), error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It uses two sentences and a parameter list efficiently, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more structured.

  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 (a submission tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return values beyond '返回答题结果' (return answer results), and how it interacts with the system. For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, this is inadequate.

  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 provides some semantic context: JSESSIONID is described as '用户的JSESSIONID' (user's JSESSIONID), answer is clarified as '答案，例如 "A" 或 "B" 等选项' (answer, such as 'A' or 'B' options). However, course_id and question_id lack additional meaning beyond their names. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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: '提交课程题目答案, 返回答题结果' (submit course question answers, return answer results). It specifies the verb (submit) and resource (question answers), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_question. The purpose is specific and actionable.

  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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_courses or get_question. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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