Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_documentsA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only says 'lists all documents' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, paginated, ordered, or what metadata is returned. This is minimal behavioral context.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any additional context such as ordering, scope, or performance implications. While an output schema exists, the description still feels sparse for a tool with no other documentation or annotations.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly imposes no additional parameter requirements.

  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 states the tool lists all documents in the knowledge base, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'documents'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like query_knowledge_base and search_relevant_chunks, which focus on searching/querying rather than full listing.

  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 use case is implied: listing all documents when a complete inventory is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling search tools, nor any mention of exclusion criteria or context.

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

• query_knowledge_baseA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. It explicitly describes the search-and-generate behavior, implying a read-only operation, but omits any details about response format, permissions, or side effects. For a simple query tool, this basic disclosure is minimally adequate.

  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 a front-loaded action sentence and a brief Args note. Every sentence offers useful information; the example contributes to parameter clarity without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools, leaving a gap in the overall contextual picture.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  The input schema only provides a 'question' string with no description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining it is the user's question and gives a concrete example ('小明的宠物叫什么？'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 the tool finds the most relevant content from a local knowledge base and generates an answer. This is a specific verb+resource+action, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_relevant_chunks (which likely just returns chunks without generation) and list_documents.

  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 use for answering questions from a local knowledge base, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_relevant_chunks or list_documents. No when-to-use versus alternatives guidance is provided, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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

• search_relevant_chunksA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool bypasses the generator and returns original text, adding meaning beyond the name and schema. While it doesn't mention read-only guarantees or other effects, for a search tool this is sufficient.

  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 sentence plus a compact Args list. Every element earns its place with no redundant wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, search-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key behavioral trait (no generation, returns raw text). No critical information is missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining 'question' as the search keyword and 'top_k' as the number of chunks to return (default 3). This adds clear semantics beyond the schema's bare property titles.

  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 uses a specific verb and resource: '搜索...知识片段' (search knowledge chunks) and clarifies that it returns original text without passing through a generator. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_knowledge_base and list_documents.

  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 parenthetical '不经过生成器，返回原文' provides clear context that this tool is for raw retrieval rather than generated answers, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks a full exclusions statement.

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