Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• audit_start_traceC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new trace is started and session info is returned, but does not mention side effects, whether this overwrites an existing trace, required permissions, or what 'trace session information' contains. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and return value concisely. Every word contributes. It earns points for efficiency, though it borders on under-specification. It is not verbose or cluttered.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what context/agentName/taskIntent are used for, what the session info includes, or how this integrates with the audit workflow. The sibling tools add context but the description itself lacks essential operational details.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any of the three parameters (context, agentName, taskIntent) or their meanings. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare property names, leaving the agent to guess what these fields should contain.

  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 action: 'Start a new audit trace' and its return value: 'return trace session information'. This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., audit_start_trace vs audit_record_event) beyond the start/record/end distinction, which is implicit.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, sequencing (e.g., use before audit_record_event), or exclusions. Given the sibling tools exist, this is a clear gap.

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

• audit_record_eventC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects like appending to a trace, potential failure if the trace doesn't exist, or whether an acknowledgment is returned. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects.

  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 delivers its core purpose without filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and all words contribute meaning, making it highly efficient.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  This is a write tool with six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no information about return values, failure modes, or the operational context (e.g., trace lifecycle). It is severely under-specified for an agent to use correctly.

  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?

  The description has 0% schema coverage—it doesn't mention any of the six parameters. The schema provides types and enums (e.g., phase, level) but no semantic explanations. The tool name and description give no hints about what traceId, phase, or message mean in context, so parameters remain unexplained.

  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 '向指定追踪会话记录一条行为事件' clearly states the tool records a behavior event into a specified trace session, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start/end/get/export trace operations. The verb '记录' and resource '追踪会话' provide specific action and target, though it doesn't elaborate on what '行为事件' entails.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_start_trace or audit_get_trail. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active trace) or scenarios where recording an event is appropriate.

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

• audit_export_reportB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action and format. It does not mention whether parameters are required, whether the report is returned or saved, whether it is a read-only operation, or any side effects. This leaves key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

  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 with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose, making it appropriately concise and easy to scan.

  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 lack of annotations, output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how the two optional parameters are used, what the output contains, or when the tool is appropriate. For a simple tool this might be minimally viable, but the missing parameter guidance and usage context make it insufficient.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The text mentions 'audit events' and 'tracking timeline', which weakly map to eventId and traceId, but it never explicitly says which parameter corresponds to which entity or that either is optional. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare field names.

  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 exports audit events or trace timelines into a Markdown report, with a specific verb ('导出' / export), resource, and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_start_trace and audit_get_trail, which handle trace lifecycle and retrieval.

  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 only says '按需' (on demand), providing no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_get_trail, nor does it explain how to choose between eventId and traceId. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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

• audit_get_trailB
  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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, does not modify the trace session, or explain the return format, ordering, or error behavior. It adds no information beyond what the tool name already conveys.

  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 front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it well-structured for its length.

  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?

  The tool has a moderate parameter set (4 params, 2 enums), no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining sufficient context. It does not describe what the audit event list contains, how the filter parameters interact, or what the response structure is, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

  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?

  The description adds meaning only to traceId by referring to a 'specified trace session', but does not explain the purpose of 'level', 'limit', or 'phase' filters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance, leaving the agent to guess how to use these additional 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?

  The description clearly states the tool queries the audit event list for a specified trace session, using the specific verb 'query' and identifying both the resource (audit event list) and scope (specified trace session). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools that start traces, record events, end traces, or export reports.

  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 prerequisites, such as needing an active trace session, nor does it suggest using audit_export_report for different reporting needs. The usage context is only implied by the semantics of 'querying a trace session.'

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

• audit_end_traceB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It does state the core action ('ends the session') and the return type ('event summary'), but it omits important details such as irreversibility, prerequisites (active session), error behavior for invalid traceId, and the effect of the 'outcome' parameter.

  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 with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

  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?

  For a simple lifecycle tool, the description covers the primary action and return value, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves significant gaps around parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

  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?

  The phrase '指定追踪会话' weakly implies the required traceId parameter, but the description provides no semantics for the 'outcome' parameter (completed/failed) or its default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

  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 ('结束' / end) with the resource ('追踪会话' / trace session) and identifies a distinct output ('事件汇总' / event summary). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_start_trace, audit_record_event, audit_get_trail, and audit_export_report.

  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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after audit_start_trace or before audit_get_trail. The intended usage is only implied by the lifecycle semantics of ending a trace and the sibling tool names.

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