Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_branch_authorsA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It explains scope and parameter modes but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any ordering/dedup behavior. This is adequate but leaves room for more 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 well-organized with a brief intro, numbered modes, and a bulleted use-case list. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or redundancy.

  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?

  With four parameters, two modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains parameter interplay and usage context. The main gap is the lack of detail about exact returned fields (e.g., names, emails), but this is not critical for tool selection/invocation.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful mode-based semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies which parameters are needed in each mode and elaborates that from_commit captures all commits after it up to dev_branch. This extra value justifies a 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 states a specific action: '列出变更范围内所有提交的作者信息' (list author info of all commits in the change range). This clearly identifies the tool's resource and purpose, and distinguishes it from siblings get_changed_files and generate_code_review, which deal with files and reviews rather than authors.

  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 usage context with two explicit modes (branch comparison and commit hash mode) and concrete use cases (confirming own Git username, seeing participants in this iteration). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the mode guidance is solid, so it earns a 4.

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

• generate_code_reviewA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 disclosing behavior. It clearly explains the interactive two-step process (returning changed files when file_descriptions is omitted, then requiring a second call with descriptions) and the mode-selection rules. This goes beyond a simple purpose statement, though it does not cover every potential edge case.

  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 well-structured with clear headings for modes, use cases, usage, and parameters. While lengthy, every section provides necessary context for a complex tool, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or filler sentences are present.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (two modes, interactive workflow, 8 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers mode selection, the file_descriptions round-trip, output path behavior, and usage scenarios, giving an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 description includes a dedicated parameter section that explains the role of each parameter and adds semantic context beyond the schema. It clarifies the mutually exclusive relationship between target_branch and from_commit, which is not fully evident from the schema alone. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the added mode logic raises it to 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 starts with '生成代码Review报告', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_changed_files and list_branch_authors by focusing on report generation, not just listing files or authors.

  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 explicit usage scenarios (end-of-iteration sharing, code review preparation, technical record keeping) and explains the two operation modes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct users to alternative sibling tools, stopping short of a perfect score.

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

• get_changed_filesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operational modes and the output as a list of file paths. However, it stops short of detailing the exact return format, edge cases (e.g., deleted files, untracked files), or ordering, which would be valuable for full 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 well-structured with clear headings for two modes and a numbered usage workflow. It includes practical examples of generated descriptions, all of which are relevant to downstream usage. The length is justified given the complexity of the two modes and the integration guidance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains both input modes, the return value (list of paths), and the intended integration with generate_code_review, including example filename-to-description mappings. This is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the roles of target_branch and from_commit within the two modes, going beyond the schema's individual descriptions. It also implies the relationship between dev_branch and the modes, enriching parameter understanding.

  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 it '获取变更文件的路径列表' (gets the list of changed file paths) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes two modes (branch comparison and commit hash) that further clarify the tool's scope, and the workflow differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_code_review and list_branch_authors.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly explains when to use each mode: branch comparison mode requires target_branch, while commit hash mode is for when you don't want to specify a target branch. It also provides a step-by-step usage flow, connecting this tool to generate_code_review, making it clear how it fits into the overall review process.

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