Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_arxivC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no structured safety hints.

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('搜索 arXiv 论文'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by including key details upfront, but it earns high marks for zero waste in its brevity.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., paper metadata, abstracts), error handling, or how results are sorted/filtered. With 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it minimally covers inputs but lacks context on behavior and outputs.

  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 input schema fully documents parameters ('query' for English keywords, 'maxResults' with default 5). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or result ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '搜索 arXiv 论文' (Search arXiv papers) states the basic action and resource, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_recent_ai_papers' or 'parse_paper_content'. It lacks specificity about what kind of search it performs (e.g., full-text, metadata, date ranges).

  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 like 'get_recent_ai_papers' for recent papers or 'parse_paper_content' for analyzing content. The description implies a general search function but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

• get_arxiv_pdf_urlC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (gets a PDF URL) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., a direct URL string). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by including a brief example). There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks output details (what the PDF URL looks like), error conditions, and behavioral context. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently without trial and error, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'input' fully documented in the schema as accepting arXiv URLs or IDs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 '获取 arXiv PDF 下载链接' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (arXiv PDF 下载链接/arXiv PDF download URL), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recent_ai_papers' (list papers) and 'parse_paper_content' (extract content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_arxiv' which might also return PDF URLs. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about being a URL resolver rather than a downloader.

  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 like 'search_arxiv' or 'parse_paper_content'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an arXiv ID), exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection in a multi-tool environment.

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

• parse_paper_contentC
  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 full burden but reveals little about behavioral traits. It mentions format preferences (HTML over PDF) but doesn't disclose what the tool actually returns (structured content? raw text?), error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it performs destructive operations. The description is insufficient for a tool that presumably extracts and returns paper content.

  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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Chinese that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('解析论文内容') followed by implementation detail. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.

  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's complexity (parsing academic papers with format fallbacks), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one being a nested object), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what parsed content looks like, how HTML/PDF parsing differs, what metadata from paperInfo gets used, or error conditions. For a content extraction tool, this leaves too many unknowns.

  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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain how 'input' relates to the format preference mentioned, nor clarifies the optional 'paperInfo' object's purpose in the parsing context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: '解析论文内容' (parse paper content) with specific implementation details about preferring HTML version and falling back to PDF. It distinguishes from siblings like get_arxiv_pdf_url (gets URL only) and search_arxiv (searches metadata), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_recent_ai_papers which might also involve content parsing.

  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 doesn't mention when to choose parse_paper_content over get_arxiv_pdf_url (for just the PDF URL) or search_arxiv (for metadata search), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing arXiv URLs/IDs specifically.

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

• get_recent_ai_papersB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, response format, or error conditions. For a tool that presumably makes external API calls, this lack of behavioral context 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: it specifies the action ('获取'), the resource ('arXiv AI 领域最新论文'), and the specific category ('cs.AI/recent'). There's zero waste or redundancy.

  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 that this tool likely makes API calls to arXiv and has no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the results will be in, how many papers are returned, whether there's pagination, or any error handling. For a tool that fetches data from an external service, more context about the response behavior is needed.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no need for parameter explanation when none are required.

  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: '获取 arXiv AI 领域最新论文' (Get latest arXiv AI papers). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('arXiv AI 领域最新论文' - latest arXiv AI papers), and mentions the specific category 'cs.AI/recent'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'get_arxiv_pdf_url', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' (which might allow broader searches) or 'get_arxiv_pdf_url' (which fetches specific PDFs). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus when other tools should be used instead.

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