Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_cnkiA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination/sorting support and cautions about page limits and intervals, hinting at rate limiting or anti-scraping behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, result formats, or other side effects, so transparency is moderate.

  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: the first defines purpose and capabilities, the second gives precise usage advice. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 search tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, supported search types, sorting/pagination, and practical constraints. It lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools, but otherwise is sufficiently complete.

  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 has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so baseline applies. The description reinforces search_type and pagination/sorting but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 searches CNKI papers with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported search types, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_best_match, though the focus on general search is implied.

  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?

  Provides practical usage guidance: '建议搜索 1-3 页，间隔 2-3 秒' (recommend searching 1-3 pages, interval 2-3 seconds). However, it does not explain when to use this vs. alternatives like get_paper_detail or find_best_match, leaving that decision implicit.

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

• find_best_matchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses character similarity and only considers the first page of search results, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like no match found or whether it performs network requests.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the matching algorithm detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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?

  Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core scope (matching on first page, using similarity) and parameters sufficiently. It omits discussion of edge cases, but the simplicity of the tool and the output schema compensate.

  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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing that the title is used for matching and the default search type is '篇名'. It does not further elaborate parameter usage.

  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 finds the most matching paper in CNKI based on the input title, using a character similarity algorithm on first-page search results. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like search_cnki and get_paper_detail.

  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 when you have a paper title and want the best match from CNKI, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternative tools. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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

• get_paper_detailA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned data fields, which is helpful, but does not mention potential access restrictions, error behavior for invalid URLs, or any side effects. As a read-only retrieval tool, the core behavior is clear, but important context is missing.

  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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the return fields. There is no unnecessary information, and it is easy to parse quickly.

  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 an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, what input is needed, and what output can be expected. However, it lacks explicit links to sibling tools and any mention of potential failure modes or access requirements, leaving some gaps.

  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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including an example. The tool description simply repeats '传入论文详情页 URL' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 function: retrieving detailed information for a CNKI paper, listing specific fields (title, author, institution, etc.). The verb '获取' and resource '知网论文的详细信息' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like search_cnki and find_best_match, which are search-focused.

  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 instruction '传入论文详情页 URL' makes clear that the tool requires a paper detail page URL, implying it should be used when such a URL is already available. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when searching is needed).

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