Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• led_controlC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('control') but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, has side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool that likely changes hardware state.

  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 extremely concise with just three characters in Chinese, which is efficient. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It gets straight to the point but lacks necessary detail.

  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 this is a hardware control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely interacts with physical hardware, more context is needed about its operation and effects.

  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 clear enum values ('on'/'off'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'on' or 'off' means in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 '控制LED开关' (control LED switch) states a clear verb ('control') and resource ('LED switch'), but it's vague about what specific action is performed. It doesn't distinguish from potential siblings like 'set_pwm' which might also control LEDs. 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_pwm'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It's a basic statement of function without usage instructions.

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

• get_pico_infoC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('获取Pico开发板信息') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese ('获取Pico开发板信息'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without losing conciseness.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what specific information is retrieved, the format of the output, or any behavioral context. While the tool is straightforward, the description should provide more completeness to help an AI agent understand the full scope and expected results.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

  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 '获取Pico开发板信息' (Get Pico development board information) states a clear purpose with a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('Pico开发板信息' - Pico development board information). However, it lacks specificity about what information is retrieved (e.g., hardware specs, firmware version, status) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'led_control' or 'set_pwm', which are clearly different operations. This makes it vague but functional.

  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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'led_control' or 'set_pwm'. Without such information, an AI agent must infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

• set_pwmC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets PWM frequency, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., on hardware, persistence), permissions needed, error conditions, or side effects. The range constraint is noted, but overall behavioral context is minimal.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and key constraint (range 0-100). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral effects, return values, error handling, and how it relates to sibling tools. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe or 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.

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'frequency' well-documented in the schema as an integer in range 0-100. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating the range, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('设置PWM频率' - set PWM frequency) and the resource (PWM), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'led_control' or 'get_pico_info', but the specificity of PWM frequency setting is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

  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 'led_control' (which might involve PWM for LEDs) or other potential tools. It mentions the frequency range (0-100) but doesn't explain application contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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