Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_timestampA
  4.5/5.0
  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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by '获取'/'get'), returns an integer in seconds, is globally timezone-agnostic, and references the Unix epoch. It doesn't mention rate limits or errors, but for a simple timestamp tool, this is adequate.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying details about the timestamp's nature and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bilingual format (Chinese/English) is efficient for clarity.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the return value (integer seconds), and key behavioral aspects. With an output schema, it doesn't need to detail return structure further.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed, aligning with the schema. No additional parameter semantics are 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('获取'/'get') and resource ('当前Unix时间戳'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns seconds (vs. format_timestamp which likely formats, and get_current_time which might return a different representation). It explicitly mentions the Unix epoch reference point.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to get the current Unix timestamp in seconds, globally consistent across time zones. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation from siblings.

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

• format_timestampA
  4.6/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it converts timestamps, has a default timezone ('Asia/Shanghai'), specifies the return format ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS 时区'), and mentions error conditions ('Raises: ValueError'). This adds valuable context beyond the input schema, though it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or authentication needs.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 the tool's low complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and error handling, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional explanations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'timestamp' is a Unix timestamp in seconds and 'timezone' is a target timezone name with a default of '中国标准时间' (mapped to 'Asia/Shanghai' in the schema). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for both 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's purpose with specific verbs ('将Unix时间戳转换为指定时区的可读时间格式') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_current_time' and 'get_timestamp' by focusing on conversion rather than retrieval. It explicitly mentions the resource (Unix timestamp) and transformation (to readable time format).

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (converting Unix timestamps to readable time in a specific timezone) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for timestamp formatting needs, though lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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

• get_current_timeA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the default timezone behavior, mentions worldwide timezone support, describes the return format, and specifies error conditions (ValueError for invalid timezone). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but those are less critical for a time lookup 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?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, Args, Returns, Raises), front-loads the core functionality, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words while maintaining completeness.

  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 the tool's low complexity (single optional parameter), no annotations, but having an output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return format, and error conditions. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it appropriately focuses on semantic context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage and only shows a string parameter named 'timezone'. The description compensates fully by explaining what the parameter means ('时区名称'), providing concrete examples of common timezones with their human-readable names, and mentioning the default value. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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's purpose with specific verb ('获取') and resource ('当前时间'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for current time (not formatting or getting timestamps). It explicitly mentions '指定时区' (specified timezone), making the scope clear.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use ('当AI需要知道当前时间时可以调用此工具') and includes a default behavior ('默认使用中国标准时间'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on current time rather than timestamp manipulation or formatting.

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