Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• w2w_get_employeesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get all employees'. It does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or response behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not confirm safety or limitations.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-all operation.

  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?

  For a simple, zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the response format, any implicit filters (e.g., active employees only), or potential limitations like pagination. Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more guidance would improve completeness.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information because none is needed.

  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 'Get' and the resource 'all employees from When2Work', which is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., get_positions), but the resource name makes it unambiguous.

  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. With six sibling get_* tools, there is no mention of when to select this one over others, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• w2w_get_positionsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that it gets positions, with no mention of side effects, return format, filtering, or limitations. For a read-only list operation, this is minimal but lacks any contextual detail.

  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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

  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 (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain return structure or any filters, which might be expected for a 'get all' operation. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks depth.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed.

  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 'Get all positions from When2Work' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('positions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like w2w_get_employees and w2w_get_shifts. It succinctly states what the tool does.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names suggest differentiation, the description itself does not mention use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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

• w2w_get_daily_totalsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits such as showing assigned shifts/hours and supporting automatic pagination. Yet it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or what exactly constitutes 'totals', which would add more context.

  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 composed of three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the main action and adds only informative details (return content and pagination). No filler or 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?

  For a simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return summary, and pagination behavior. It could be more precise about the structure of the daily totals, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 100% coverage for the two parameters, including format and examples. The description only refers to 'a date range' without adding any extra meaning to the start_date and end_date parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Get'), the resource ('daily schedule totals from When2Work'), and the scope ('for a date range'). It also mentions what is shown (assigned shifts and hours), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling w2w_get_daily_position_totals.

  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 situational guidance by noting that automatic pagination is supported for ranges over 31 days, implying the tool is suitable for long date ranges. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools.

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

• w2w_get_daily_position_totalsA
  3.9/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool shows assigned shifts and hours per day, broken down by position, and supports automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'gets data' statement. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits, which would be additional context but are not critical for this simple read operation.

  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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core function, and the second elaborates on the output content and pagination behavior. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse and act upon.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It conveys the purpose, what is returned, and a key behavioral aspect (pagination). While a more explicit description of the return structure could be beneficial in the absence of an output schema, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively. The lack of mention of alternative tools slightly reduces completeness in a broader context.

  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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions and example format. The description adds value by noting that ranges over 31 days trigger automatic pagination, which explains the combined effect of start_date and end_date beyond what the schema specifies. This enhances understanding of how the parameters interact, meriting a score above the baseline of 3.

  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 tool gets daily schedule totals by position for a date range from When2Work. It identifies the action (get), resource (daily schedule totals by position), and scope (date range). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool w2w_get_daily_totals, which likely provides similar totals without the position breakdown.

  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: when you need daily schedule totals broken down by position. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Given the existence of the sibling tool w2w_get_daily_totals, the lack of guidance on selecting between them is a notable gap. The guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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

• w2w_get_categoriesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the scope ("all shift categories") and read-only nature, but doesn't discuss return format, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple parameterless list tool but not detailed.

  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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. No fluff.

  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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. It could mention what a "shift category" includes or the response format, but it's sufficient for basic selection.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is already at 100% coverage (an empty object). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

  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 ("Get") and resource ("shift categories") and names the source system ("When2Work"). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like w2w_get_employees by naming a distinct entity.

  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 or alternatives is provided. The purpose is specific enough to imply its use case, but it doesn't mention exclusions or how it differs from sibling getters beyond the resource name.

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

• w2w_get_shiftsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait (automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days) but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it returns all shifts for the current user, sorting, error handling, or rate limits. The pagination detail is a positive addition, but more context would be needed for full transparency.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and it is easy to scan.

  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 getter with no output schema and a fully described input schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail (pagination). It could mention scope (e.g., all shifts vs. user's shifts) but overall is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 all three parameters fully documented in the input schema. The description adds general context about date ranges and pagination but does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. 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 tool retrieves assigned shifts from When2Work for a date range, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('shifts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a unique resource type, and the date-range scope is explicit.

  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 usage for fetching shift data over a specified date range and notes automatic pagination for long ranges, which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the distinct resource type makes the intended context clear.

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

• w2w_get_timeoffA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful behavior: 'approved time off' implies filtering, and 'automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days' discloses pagination behavior. It doesn't cover error handling or exact output structure, but the key traits are disclosed.

  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, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second adds a critical behavior. No filler or 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?

  For a simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource, scope, and pagination. However, it doesn't briefly mention the return format or fields, which would be slightly more complete.

  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 both parameters described with format examples (mm/dd/yyyy). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('Get'), resource ('approved time off'), and source ('When2Work'), with a scope ('for a date range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the specific resource (time off vs employees, positions, etc.).

  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 clear context for use (date range) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are distinct by resource, making the intended use apparent from context, so it earns a 4.

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