Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• biji_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (AI-generated answers and citations) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, latency, or cost implications, which are particularly relevant given the deep_seek option that may incur additional processing.

  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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler content.

  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 (1 required) and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the search is semantic or keyword-based, what input format the question should take, or any caveats about the AI-generated answers or reference handling, making it incomplete for a relatively complex tool.

  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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, such as implying that with_refs controls citation sources.

  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 uses the verb 'search' with a specific resource (Get Notes knowledge base) and describes the output (AI-generated answers and citation sources). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than recall or listing, though it does not explicitly name the 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?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. the sibling tools (biji_recall, biji_list_kb). The description only states the tool's function, not the circumstances or context in which it should be preferred over others.

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

• biji_list_kbA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and the lack of parameters further suggests a harmless call. However, the description does not disclose return format, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for such a trivial tool.

  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 sentence in Chinese, directly stating the action and object without any redundancy or filler. It is both concise and informative, earning every word.

  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 operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core function: listing all configured knowledge bases. It lacks explicit return value details, but the nature of the tool makes it reasonable to expect a list of knowledge base identifiers. This is adequate for the tool's complexity.

  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 input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, which is appropriate and sufficient.

  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 '列出' (list) and a clear resource '所有已配置的Get笔记知识库' (all configured Get note knowledge bases). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools biji_search and biji_recall, which perform search and recall operations rather than listing available knowledge bases.

  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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contexts where listing knowledge bases is preferred over searching or recalling. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool's name and basic function.

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

• biji_recallA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs no AI processing and returns a relevance-sorted list, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, authentication needs, or result format details. This is moderate 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

  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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It explains the general result type (relevance-sorted list) but lacks detail on result fields, edge cases, or interactions between parameters like intent_rewrite and the retrieval behavior. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate 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 recalls raw knowledge base content fragments without AI processing and returns a relevance-sorted list. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like biji_search (likely AI-processed) and biji_list_kb.

  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 description provides clear context: use this tool when raw content fragments are needed and no AI processing is desired. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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