Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_methodB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via '查询' (query) and states that the result includes the method signature and description. However, it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or the exact structure of the returned signature. For a simple getter, this is moderate but not detailed.

  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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous details. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it a model of 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?

  There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. While it mentions '签名和说明' (signature and description), it does not specify the structure of the signature (e.g., parameters, return type) or any edge-case behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of output format details leaves an important gap for an agent deciding whether the result will be sufficient.

  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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (className and methodName), with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply references the class and method context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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: '查询某个类的特定方法签名和说明' (query the signature and description of a specific method of a class). It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('特定方法的签名和说明') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_class and get_module. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with these alternatives, so it stops short of 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. It does not mention that get_method is for method-level details, or suggest using get_class for class-level details, or search_api for finding methods. There is no 'use this when' or 'use that when' information, so the agent has no support for choosing between siblings.

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

• search_apiB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions keyword search and bilingual support, but fails to disclose read-only nature, result format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

  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 conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

  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 is simple, and the description covers its core purpose. However, it lacks any mention of return values or usage context, and no output schema exists to compensate. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

  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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters: query includes examples like '延迟执行' and source includes an enum with meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 '按关键词搜索框架或Cocos API' (search by keyword for framework or Cocos API), specifying a concrete verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module, get_class, and get_method, which are targeted retrievals rather than broad searches.

  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 instead of siblings. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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

• get_classA
  3.5/5.0
  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 that the tool returns 'complete properties and methods', but does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether inherited members are included, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure with limited 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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup operation.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description states that it returns complete class/interface attributes and methods, which is adequate for basic use, but it lacks details on edge cases, scope (e.g., inherited members), and error handling, making it minimally complete rather than comprehensive.

  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 describes className with examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the nuance '类或接口' (class or interface), slightly extending the schema's '类名', but does not otherwise provide additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 '查询某个类或接口的完整属性和方法' (query the complete properties and methods of a class or interface), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_method (specific method) and get_module (module-level).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that usage is implied — if you need full class/interface details, this is the tool. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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

• get_moduleA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the query action but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention any side effects, permissions, or note the return format beyond the fact that it returns classes and interfaces. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  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 with no fluff, redundant information, or unnecessary detail. It effectively communicates the core purpose without waste.

  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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, simple purpose) and the well-described schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the output (all classes and interfaces), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, the absence of behavioral transparency and usage alternatives prevents a perfect score.

  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 single parameter 'moduleName' is fully described in the schema with examples (exia-ccui, exia-data, etc.), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 function: query all classes and interfaces in a module. It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('模块'), and the result set is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_class and get_method, which target individual elements, and search_api, which searches differently.

  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 (use when you need all classes/interfaces of a module) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No guidance is given on how to choose between get_module and search_api, get_class, or get_method. This is an implied, not explicit, usage context.

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