Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-current-timeB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify the return format (ISO string, timestamp, etc.), timezone handling (UTC vs local), or safety characteristics (read-only nature). Only the basic function is stated.

  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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated. No redundant or unnecessary text is present.

  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 (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits critical runtime context such as timezone, precision, and return value structure that would be necessary for robust agent operation without trial-and-error.

  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 input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). According to the evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter description is necessary or expected.

  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 specific action (取得する/get) and resource (現在の日時/current date and time). It effectively distinguishes from siblings 'echo' and 'search-wikipedia' which operate on completely different domains. However, it lacks scope specification (timezone, format) 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. While siblings are clearly distinct (echo, search-wikipedia), there is no explicit context about when retrieving current time is appropriate or necessary prerequisites.

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

• echoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 message is returned 'as-is' (そのまま), indicating an identity function behavior, but lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency, synchronous/asynchronous nature, or error conditions.

  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, efficiently structured sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration for this simple utility tool.

  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 tool's simplicity (single string input, identity transformation), 100% schema coverage, and the universal understanding of 'echo' functionality, the description is reasonably complete. While an output schema is absent, the description adequately covers the input-to-output relationship for this trivial operation.

  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 the single parameter 'message' fully documented in the schema as 'エコーするメッセージ'. The description implies the message will be returned but does not add syntax details, constraints, or examples beyond the schema definition, warranting the baseline score.

  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 'returns the input message as-is' (入力されたメッセージをそのまま返す), using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings get-current-time and search-wikipedia, as echoing messages is functionally distinct from retrieving time or searching encyclopedia entries.

  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. While the purpose is obvious from the name and description, there is no explicit guidance on preferred use cases (e.g., testing connectivity, debugging) or when to avoid it in favor of more complex messaging tools.

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

• search-wikipediaA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses that it returns article summaries (not full content) and specifically searches Japanese Wikipedia. However, it lacks details on result limits, pagination, or behavior when no matches are found.

  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 that is perfectly front-loaded with zero waste. It efficiently packs the language (Japanese), action (search), input (keyword), and output (summaries) into a compact description where every element provides value.

  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 this is a simple single-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by specifying what is searched and what is returned. However, it could improve by clarifying whether multiple results or a single best match is returned.

  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 the 'query' parameter fully documented in the schema with an example. The description mentions 'キーワード' (keyword) which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema definition.

  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 the specific action (検索/search), resource (日本語Wikipedia/Japanese Wikipedia), and output (記事の要約/article summaries). It distinctly differs from siblings 'echo' and 'get-current-time' by specifying Wikipedia search functionality.

  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?

  While the description implies usage through its specific function (Wikipedia search), it provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions where it might not be suitable.

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