Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_puzzleC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves puzzle content but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary details, though the return description '选择结果信息' (selection result information) is vague. Overall, it's efficient but could be more informative in key areas.

  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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values. The vague return description and absence of output schema leave the agent uncertain about what to expect, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

  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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It mentions 'puzzle_title: 海龟汤的标题' (puzzle_title: the title of the puzzle), which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format details or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, this offers some compensation but is insufficient for full understanding, aligning with the baseline.

  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: '获取一个谜题的完整内容' (get the complete content of a puzzle). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '谜题' (puzzle), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_puzzles_tool', which might list puzzles rather than retrieve full content.

  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 sibling tools like 'get_prompt' or 'list_puzzles_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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

• list_puzzles_toolC
  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 states the tool returns a puzzle list, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is brief with two lines: one stating the purpose and another indicating the return value. However, the 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant since it just restates '谜题列表' (puzzle list) without adding value. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate the unnecessary return annotation.

  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. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the puzzle list), error handling, or any behavioral context. For a list operation, this leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it appropriately avoids redundant information.

  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: '列出所有可用的谜题' (List all available puzzles). It uses a specific verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('谜题' - puzzles). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_puzzle' which likely retrieves a specific puzzle, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

  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_puzzle' or 'get_prompt'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• get_promptB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states what the tool does ('获取海龟汤游戏的玩法') without describing how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns static instructions, dynamic content, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence ('获取海龟汤游戏的玩法') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, no-parameter tool and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every part of the description earns its place.

  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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about what '海龟汤游戏' (turtle soup game) entails, how the gameplay information is structured, or any behavioral details. For a tool that might return complex instructions, more completeness would be helpful, but the low complexity keeps it from being a 1.

  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 the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No parameters means no additional burden for the description to compensate, justifying a score of 4.

  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 as '获取海龟汤游戏的玩法' (Get the gameplay of the turtle soup game), which is a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('海龟汤游戏的玩法' - gameplay of turtle soup game). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_puzzle' and 'list_puzzles_tool' by focusing on gameplay instructions rather than puzzles themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

  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_puzzle' or 'list_puzzles_tool'. It doesn't specify whether this is for learning game rules before playing, troubleshooting, or other contexts. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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