Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_worklogC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Delete', which implies mutation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as reversibility, side effects, or authorization requirements.

  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 no wasted words; it is a single short sentence that gets straight to the point.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides minimal context. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, or side effects.

  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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the worklogId parameter.

  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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('an existing worklog entry'), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like post_worklog or get_worklogs.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

• get_worklogsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions retrieval for authenticated user and date range, but fails to detail pagination, rate limits, or output format. Given the lack of output schema, this leaves the agent guessing.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks context on return values, error handling, or pagination. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is insufficient for complete understanding.

  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 already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'retrieve worklogs'. 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 'Retrieve', resource 'worklogs', and scope 'authenticated user and date range'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like bulk_post_worklogs and delete_worklog, which involve writing or deleting.

  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 reading worklogs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_schedule or other siblings. No alternatives or when-not to use are provided.

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

• post_worklogA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new worklog entry' but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or behavior on conflicts. The description is insufficient for a mutation 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 concise at two sentences, with the action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides a usage tip. No wasted words.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or confirmation of creation, leaving the agent underinformed for proper invocation.

  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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 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 explicitly states 'Create a new worklog entry,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_worklog (delete), get_schedule (read), and get_worklogs (read), and bulk_post_worklogs (bulk creation) by indicating single entry creation.

  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 using get_schedule first to verify working days, providing clear guidance for optimal use. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare with bulk_post_worklogs, but the sibling context implies single vs bulk.

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

• get_scheduleA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only and requires authentication, but does not detail behavior on errors or limits. Acceptable for a straightforward retrieval.

  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?

  A single, compact sentence of 9 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous 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 the simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It specifies the user context and input, but could optionally mention what the schedule contains (e.g., shifts, tasks).

  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?

  The input schema already provides descriptive parameter names and format details (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond 'date range', which is already implied by 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 action ('Retrieve'), resource ('work schedule'), and scope ('for authenticated user and date range'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with worklogs.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description implies usage for obtaining a schedule for a date range, but does not clarify when one would prefer this over other tools like get_worklogs.

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

• bulk_post_worklogsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 warns about logging on non-working days via the recommendation, but does not disclose error handling, partial failures, or permission requirements.

  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, front-loaded with purpose followed by a critical recommendation. No extraneous 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?

  For a bulk creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage guidance adequately. Missing details on error handling or success confirmation, but overall sufficient.

  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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 'Create multiple worklog entries from a structured format,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_worklog for single entries.

  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?

  Explicitly recommends using get_schedule first to identify working days, providing clear context on when to use the tool and how to avoid issues with non-working days.

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