Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• startJobC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details (e.g., side effects, required permissions, idempotency). The word 'start' implies mutation but no specifics.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence in Chinese. It is not overly verbose, but it is too minimal to be considered well-structured or fully informative.

  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?

  Given 6 parameters, one required, nested 'params' object, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., mutual exclusivity of accountName and robotClientGroupUuid).

  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 descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 action (start) and resource (RPA application JOB). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like queryJob or queryClientList, which are query operations, but the name itself implies uniqueness.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description only states the basic purpose without usage instructions.

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

• uploadFileC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Description lacks behavioral details beyond basic upload. No info on side effects, file size limits, authentication, or what happens after upload. Ambiguity in 'file' parameter type.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, but under-specified. Missing critical details for a file upload tool.

  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?

  Incomplete for a file upload operation. No info on return values, error conditions, or integration with RPA platform.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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?

  Description clearly states the action (upload) and resource (file to RPA platform). Siblings are query tools, so differentiation is obvious but not explicitly stated.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or context provided.

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

• queryClientListC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. For a query tool, read-only is implied but not stated.

  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 is concise and avoids verbosity, but it is overly terse given the tool has 5 parameters.

  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 description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. Without output schema, more detail on return values or pagination behavior would improve completeness.

  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?

  Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 'query list of RPA robots,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like queryApplist.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., queryApplist, queryRobotParam), nor any prerequisites or context provided.

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

• queryRobotParamC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full weight. It only indicates a read operation ('query') but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or behavioral constraints. The agent is left uninformed about what the tool does beyond the basic query.

  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 concise sentence without superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but being in Chinese may slightly hinder quick parsing by an English-oriented agent.

  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 no output schema, the description fails to explain what the query returns. For a data retrieval tool, this is a significant gap. The description is too minimal to provide complete context for the agent.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in the schema. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 queries RPA robot parameters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like queryApplist and queryClientList, which target different resources. However, the description is in Chinese, which may reduce clarity for an English-preferring AI agent.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of prerequisites or context. The description simply states its function without helping the agent decide between queryRobotParam and sibling tools.

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

• queryApplistB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It only states basic purpose of paginated listing. No disclosure of rate limits, authentication, ordering behavior, or error conditions. Lack of behavioral details limits 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?

  Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with core purpose. Highly 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?

  For a paginated list tool with 5 parameters, the description is too brief. It does not explain return structure, default ordering, or how pagination works. More context is expected despite good schema coverage.

  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 parameter descriptions. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema; it just paraphrases the pagination concept. Baseline score of 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 it is for paginated retrieval of RPA app list. Uses specific verb '分页获取' (paginate and get) and resource 'RPA应用列表'. Different from sibling tools which operate on different resources (clients, jobs, etc.).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as required permissions. Single sentence does not address usage conditions.

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

• queryJobA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only query operation but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or what happens if jobUuid is invalid. For a simple query, the lack of detail is acceptable but not exceptional.

  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 short sentence that conveys the essential information with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description states the basic purpose but does not mention expected output format, error codes, or how the status is returned. The context from sibling tools helps partially, but additional detail would improve completeness.

  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% (the single parameter jobUuid is described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'RPA应用运行uuid，必填' (required uuid). Baseline score of 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?

  The description clearly states the action ('查询' - query) and the resource ('RPA应用JOB状态' - RPA application JOB status). It is specific and easily distinguishes from siblings like startJob (start) and uploadFile (upload).

  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 usage context or alternatives are provided. The description only states the function, without guidance on when to use this tool versus queryApplist, queryClientList, or queryRobotParam. No when-not-to-use notes.

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