Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• icloud_create_eventA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. Description does not add behavioral details such as side effects, synchronicity, or error conditions, leaving gaps.

  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?

  Compact and front-loaded with the main action. Parameter list is efficiently formatted without redundant text. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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?

  Describes return value (uid and CalDAV URL) despite no output schema, which is helpful. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., calendar must exist) and error handling, but adequate for a simple creation 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?

  100% schema coverage means the schema already describes parameters. Description adds minimal extra value (e.g., noting default for allDay) but also incompletely indicates required fields (only 'summary' said required, schema lists 4 required).

  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?

  Clearly states 'Create a new event on the specified calendar' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, list, update) by focusing on creation.

  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?

  Provides parameter details but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like icloud_update_event. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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

• icloud_update_eventA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description stating 'Update fields' and 'only provided fields are updated'. The description adds value by clarifying partial updates and the confirmation response, going beyond the annotation signals.

  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 concise (few sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence provides necessary information: action, parameters, and returns. No redundant information 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?

  The description covers the main purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., event not found), date format expectations (though implied by schema), and behavior when allDay is used with start/end. For a tool with no output schema, more completeness could be beneficial.

  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 low (25%), but the description compensates by listing all optional updatable parameters (summary, description, location, start, end, allDay) and explaining that calendar can be a display name or full URL. It also clarifies that uid comes from icloud_list_events, adding context 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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing event by UID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like icloud_create_event and icloud_delete_event by specifying the update action on an existing event, avoiding confusion.

  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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (to update an event) and hints at workflow (UID from icloud_list_events), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like icloud_create_event for creating events. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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

• icloud_list_eventsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying return fields (uid, summary, start, etc.) and noting that uid is stable for mutations. It does not mention pagination or limits, but openWorldHint covers partial results.

  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: one sentence for purpose, a bullet-like list for arguments, and a clear statement about return structure and uid significance. Every sentence is informative with no 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return shape adequately. It lacks mention of potential pagination or the implication of openWorldHint, but the uid instruction adds useful chaining context. Overall complete enough for typical usage.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents parameters well. The description provides example values ('Work') and clarifies that calendar accepts both display names and CalDAV URLs, but this largely mirrors the schema description, adding minimal new meaning.

  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 uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'events' with constraints 'from a specific calendar within a time range', clearly distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like create, delete, update, and list_calendars.

  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 clearly implies when to use (list events in a range), and mentions that 'uid' is for update/delete, which guides chaining. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like icloud_list_calendars for obtaining calendar IDs.

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

• icloud_delete_eventA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context by warning that the action is destructive and requiring user confirmation. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, ensuring the agent acts cautiously.

  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 with only three sentences: a one-line purpose, a parameter list, and a behavioral note. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple delete tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and behavioral warning. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

  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 covers 100% of parameters, so the description need not repeat everything. However, it adds value by clarifying that the 'calendar' parameter accepts a 'Display name or full CalDAV URL', which provides practical usage detail beyond the schema's generic description.

  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 explicitly states 'Delete an event by UID', clearly indicating the verb (delete) and resource (event). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like icloud_create_event, icloud_update_event, and icloud_list_events.

  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 includes 'This is destructive. Confirm with the user before invoking.', providing clear context on when to use the tool (after user confirmation). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but for a delete operation, the guidance is adequate.

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

• icloud_list_calendarsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint='false', etc. Description adds return fields (name, URL, color, timezone) but no behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction.

  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?

  Three short, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, return fields, and when to use. No fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and appropriate usage. Complete for a simple listing tool.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so description does not need to add param info. Baseline 4 per guidelines.

  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 'List all calendars' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle events (create, delete, list, update).

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Provides explicit use cases: when user asks 'what calendars do I have', when a calendar identifier is needed, and for disambiguation. No when-not cases needed as it's the only list-calendars tool.

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