Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• put_filesA
  3.5/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool returns a metadata array and that files share did/sid but have independent fids. However, it does not mention potential errors, size limits, permissions, or idempotency, which are important for a batch upload tool.

  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 dense sentence that conveys key information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('batch upload multiple local files'). However, it could be slightly restructured for better readability.

  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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (array of metadata JSON objects). However, it omits important context like error handling, file size limits, or prerequisites, which are needed for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

  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 description coverage is 100% (both 'files' and 'bucketName' have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining batch behavior and the output format, which is not in the schema. This elevates understanding beyond the schema alone.

  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 uploads multiple local files in batch, sharing the same did/sid, with each file generating its own fid, and returning an array of metadata JSON objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools put_file and put_stream. However, the terms 'did/sid' are not explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for batch uploads via the word '批量' (batch), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to the sibling tools put_file (single file) and put_stream (streaming). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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

• put_fileA
  3.8/5.0
  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 the automatic path construction and metadata upload, and specifies the return value. However, it does not disclose error handling, overwrite behavior, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps for a mutating operation.

  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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action and efficiently cover the purpose, behavior, and return value. No unnecessary information is present.

  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?

  Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's action, return format, and key behavioral detail (path construction). It is missing some context about siblings and error scenarios, but overall is fairly complete.

  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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the automatic path construction (did/sid/fid), which is not in the schema, thereby enhancing understanding of the filePath and metadata 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 uploads a single local file to MinIO, automatically builds a path structure, and uploads metadata JSON. The word '单个' (single) distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'put_files', which implies multiple files.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like put_files or put_stream is provided. The description only implies it is for single local files, but does not mention exclusions or context for choosing it.

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

• put_streamA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: streaming (no disk), returns metadata JSON. Lacks details on error handling or auth, but sufficient for a simple upload tool.

  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?

  Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  Given 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, but mentions return type (metadata JSON). Context from sibling tools (put_file, put_files) helps differentiate. Adequately complete for this complexity.

  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%, so description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 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 streaming upload from URL to MinIO, no disk landing, suitable for large files. Distinguishes from siblings like put_file and put_files by specifying stream and URL source.

  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?

  Explicitly states suitability for large files ('适合大文件') and data not landing on disk ('数据不落盘'), giving context for when to use. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but clear enough.

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