Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_componentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (Element Plus 中文官网) and that it reads an overview, but it omits important behavioral traits such as caching behavior (implied by the force_refresh parameter) and potential network dependency or failure modes.

  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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

  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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filtering capability. However, it lacks details about the return value (what data is in the overview) and does not position the tool relative to its siblings, making it only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor context by indicating filtering by category or name, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameters 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 uses a specific verb '读取' (read) and a clear resource '组件总览' (component overview), and states it can filter by category or name. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_component_doc or search_component_docs.

  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 the sibling tools get_component_doc or search_component_docs. The description implies a listing/filtering use case but offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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

• get_component_docA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the result is Chinese official documentation in Markdown format, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not mention caching, network calls, or potential side effects, even though the force_refresh parameter implies caching behavior. The description adds some value but not comprehensive 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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the verb '获取' (get). It conveys purpose and output format without any 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?

  The tool is simple and the description adequately covers the core functionality and output format, which is helpful given no output schema exists. It could be more complete by referencing sibling tools or edge cases, but overall it is sufficient for this low-complexity 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions '中英文名或 slug' but the schema's parameter description already provides examples like 'button, Button, 按钮, date-picker', covering this. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond the schema.

  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 retrieves the Chinese official Element Plus documentation based on a component's Chinese/English name or slug, with output formatted as Markdown suitable for models. This specific verb-resource-scope pairing distinguishes it from siblings like list_components and search_component_docs.

  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 conveys that this tool is for fetching a specific component's documentation by name/slug, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using search_component_docs when the exact name is unknown.

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

• search_component_docsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the first full-library search requires crawling all component pages and indicates the result shape (related components and context snippets). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits details like caching or pagination behavior.

  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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and the critical crawl caveat. Every word earns its place, with 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?

  For a search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the result type (components and snippets) and flags the expensive first search. It could further explain how the components or max_results parameters affect results, but those are partially covered by the schema.

  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 describes query and components, but max_results lacks a description and the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. With 67% schema coverage, the description neither compensates for the gap nor repeats the schema, meriting the baseline 3.

  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 states '在 Element Plus 中文组件文档中搜索关键词，返回相关组件和上下文片段' – a specific verb (search), resource (Element Plus component docs), and output (components and snippets). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools get_component_doc and list_components.

  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 gives clear context for when the tool is used (searching keywords across docs) and includes a practical caveat that '首次全库搜索需要抓取所有组件页面', warning about initial cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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