Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• zsxq_search_topicsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 searches and returns summary, ID, and statistics, indicating a read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose details like pagination (limit, offset) or filtering (filter), nor mention any side effects or authentication needs. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

  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 two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action (search and return summary/ID/stats), and the second provides a logical follow-up action (retrieve full content by ID). Structure is efficient.

  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 4 parameters (query, limit, offset, filter) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to control result volume (limit, offset) or filtering (filter), which are important for a search tool. The sibling tools provide context but the description itself lacks completeness.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is low (25%, only query has a description). The description adds no semantics for parameters like limit, offset, or filter beyond the schema's minimal info. It does not explain how these parameters affect the search, nor does it compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

  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 searches topic titles and content, returns summary, ID, and statistics. It distinguishes itself from siblings: zsxq_list_topics (list all) and zsxq_get_topic (get by ID), and zsxq_status (status). The verb '搜索' (search) and resource '话题' (topics) are specific.

  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 usage for searching topics by query, which is distinct from listing or retrieving a single topic, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• zsxq_get_topicA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read operation and returned data but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or idempotency. Lacks depth but is not misleading.

  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?

  Single sentence, concise and to the point. No redundant information. Efficiently communicates the tool's function.

  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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values by listing the types of data retrieved. It could mention if the response is structured or paginated, but is sufficient for a get-by-ID operation.

  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% with a single parameter 'id' described as '话题 ID'. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, but the overall tool purpose is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states the verb ('获取'), the resource ('话题'), and the specific data retrieved (complete content, segmented authors, images, PDF/attachment addresses, original link). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools which are for status, listing, and searching.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The need for a specific topic ID is implied by the required parameter, but there is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools.

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

• zsxq_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists returned data fields, indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly state idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects. The description is moderately transparent.

  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?

  A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It could be more structured, but it is efficient and contains no 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?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the key returned items (sync time, topic count, media stats, login status). This is sufficient for a simple status tool.

  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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is more than necessary given no parameters. Baseline is 4.

  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 retrieves specific status information (last sync time, topic count, media statistics, login status) about the knowledge planet archive. It is distinct from sibling tools (list, search, get topic) which operate on individual topics.

  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 usage for checking archive status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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

• zsxq_list_topicsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering, pagination, and summary default, which are key behavioral traits. No contradictions.

  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?

  Two sentences: first defines purpose, second gives alternative. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 list tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination, summary vs full, and sibling tool. Missing minor details about filter enum, but schema covers those.

  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 baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema for limit, filter, offset parameters.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool browses synchronized topics in reverse chronological order with pagination, and distinguishes from sibling zsxq_get_topic for 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says to use zsxq_get_topic for full content when summary is insufficient, implying this tool is for summaries. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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