Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-routinesB
  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 carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns all routines with details, lacking depth on auth, rate limits, or pagination.

  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 with a single sentence and an example, which is slightly extra but not wasteful. It is front-loaded and to the point.

  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 adequately covers the tool's purpose given its simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), but could mention that it returns routines for the authenticated user or any pagination behavior.

  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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by stating no parameters are required and providing an example, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

  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 states the tool gets user's saved workout routines, clearly specifying the verb and resource. It implies distinction from siblings like 'get-workouts' but does not explicitly differentiate.

  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 needing routines but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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

• get-exercisesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states results are sorted by usage frequency and includes frequency, categorization, metadata. This discloses basic behavior but does not confirm read-only nature or handle potential pitfalls (e.g., performance for large date ranges).

  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 (two sentences plus an example), front-loaded with the purpose, and every part adds value. 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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return type (frequency, categorization, metadata) and sorting. For a simple list tool with four optional parameters, it is sufficiently complete. Could mention that results are a list of exercises.

  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 significant value with a JSON example containing comments that clarify parameter usage (e.g., excludeUnused default, date format). This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

  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 resource 'exercises', listing the data aspects (frequency, categorization, metadata) and note on sorting by usage frequency. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-exercise-progress-by-ids.

  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?

  Usage is implied through the description and parameter example (searching and filtering exercises). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor mention of alternatives.

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

• get-exercise-progress-by-idsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering and return fields, but does not clarify if the 'limit' parameter applies per exercise or total, leaving ambiguity. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.

  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 two short paragraphs with key information front-loaded and a helpful example. No superfluous text, though it could be slightly more compact.

  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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains the core functionality and return fields. However, it lacks details on pagination, behavior when no results, and limit interpretation, leaving some gaps.

  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%, baseline 3. The description adds an example with concrete parameter formats and clarifies optionality, but does not resolve ambiguity about limit scope. The added value is marginal 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 tool retrieves progress history for specific exercises with date range filtering, returns weights/reps/sets, and orders by date descending. It is distinct from siblings like get-exercises (list exercises) and get-workouts (workout summaries).

  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 notes the tool is useful for tracking progress over time for particular exercises. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, the sibling context and clear purpose allow the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

• get-workoutsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses ordering (descending by date), limit (max 10), and default behavior (returns all if no dates). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. 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?

  Concise, with only essential information. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by behavioral details and a helpful example. No wasted words.

  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?

  No output schema, but description implies it returns a list of workouts. Provides enough context for a list-retrieval tool. Sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion.

  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. Description adds an example that clarifies date format and default limit, providing practical context beyond schema descriptions.

  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 'Get workouts between start and end dates' with verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get-exercises by focusing specifically on workouts.

  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?

  Describes when to use (for workouts between dates) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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