Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_eventA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you provide are changed.') and clarifies time format (local wall-clock + IANA time zone), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

  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 concise sentences each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, partial update, time format, and usage instruction. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most critical information.

  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 8 parameters, nested objects, destructive action, and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, partial update, time handling, and user confirmation. Missing return value description, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.

  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 coverage is 75%, with detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the partial-update nature and time zone handling, complementing the schema without repeating it. Not all params are mentioned, but the schema covers them.

  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 verb 'Update' and specifies the resource 'an existing calendar event' and some fields (time, location, subject, body). It distinguishes from list/read tools but does not explicitly differentiate from create_event (e.g., by stating not for 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?

  The description implies usage for modifying existing events and provides a direct instruction to 'Confirm changes with the user before calling.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_event for new events.

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

• list_eventsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the behavioral detail that times are returned in the requested IANA time zone, which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

  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 wasted words. Front-loads the main purpose and use case, then adds time zone and read-only behavior. Highly concise.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core operation, example use, and time zone handling. It does not repeat pagination details (already in schema), which is acceptable. The tool is adequately described.

  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 the description adds minimal new meaning. It reinforces the timeZone parameter and links start/end to conflict checking, but does not extend beyond schema documentation. 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?

  The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'calendar events', and provides an example use case ('check for conflicts before adding a booking'). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_event, update_event, and get_message due to the list and read-only nature.

  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 gives a specific context for use (checking conflicts before a booking) and declares the tool as read-only. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

• list_messagesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by listing returned fields (subject, sender, etc.) and pagination behavior, going beyond annotations.

  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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and key info, followed by actionable advice.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and pagination. It addresses the key aspects for a list tool with 7 parameters.

  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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, earning baseline 3.

  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 it searches or lists email messages, provides concrete examples (booking/confirmation emails), and distinguishes from the sibling get_message tool.

  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?

  It explains when to use the tool (find emails) and advises using get_message for full body reads. While not exhaustive, it provides clear guidance relative to siblings.

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

• get_messageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the body is HTML converted to plain text by default, that attachment metadata excludes file contents, and that it is read-only. Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds valuable detail beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

  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, well-structured sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and key behaviors without extraneous words. Information about attachments is appended concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input requirement, the parameter options, the return fields, and important limitations (no file contents). It is complete given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

  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?

  Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'by id' and the format parameter's default, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. 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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Read a single email message by id'), specifies the return fields (subject, sender, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_messages which does not return the full body. The verb 'Read' and resource 'email message' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 implies when to use this tool (when you need full details of one message) and provides context through the 'format' parameter hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_messages for overviews, though the sibling context makes this clear.

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

• whoamiA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds 'Read-only' which is consistent but does not add new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.

  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?

  Tool has no parameters and no output schema, but description explains return values (display name, email) and usage context. Annotations provide safety info, so description is 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?

  No parameters (0 params), baseline 4. Description does not need to add parameter info since schema is empty.

  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?

  Specific verb 'return' and resource 'signed-in account's display name and email' clearly state the tool's function. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are about events and messages.

  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?

  States it is useful to confirm correct account connected, providing context for when to use. No explicit exclusions or alternatives given, but siblings are distinct.

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

• create_eventA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description adds key behavioral traits: time zone handling (local wall-clock, never UTC), idempotency via transactionId, and system-side default time zone. No contradiction with annotations.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains only essential information. Every sentence adds value, and important notes are flagged with 'IMPORTANT'.

  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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers idempotency, time zone details, confirmation step, and return behavior indirectly (echo back the created event). It is complete enough for correct invocation, though explicit return structure would push it to 5.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting the time zone nuance (local wall-clock, never UTC Z) and idempotency key, which go beyond the schema descriptions. This justifies a 4.

  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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a calendar event') and includes an example ('e.g. a booking, plus separate travel-time blocks'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_events and update_event.

  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 advises confirming details with the user before calling and echoing back the created event, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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