Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_workoutsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the bar for additional transparency is lower. The description adds 'stored on the configured backend' but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or whether the list is comprehensive.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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?

  With no output schema and a paginated list operation (limit/offset/since), the description is too sparse. It does not mention return format, whether results are ordered, or how pagination works, leaving the agent guessing about the actual invocation behavior.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'since' is described). The tool description adds no explanation for limit, offset, or since. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents uncertain about how parameters affect results.

  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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('structured workouts') plus context ('configured backend'). It distinguishes from siblings: preview_workout implies a focused view of a single workout, and describe_backend is about backend metadata, whereas this tool returns a list.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where preview_workout or describe_backend would be more appropriate.

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

• preview_workoutA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by stating 'WITHOUT uploading' and detailing the types of errors it surfaces. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the tool's side-effect-free nature and its focus on validation, without contradicting any 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then a direct usage recommendation. No wasted words; ideal for a complex tool where the schema carries parameter details.

  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 high schema complexity (nested steps, many optional fields) and no output schema, the description provides useful context about behavior (compilation, no upload, error surfacing). It doesn't describe the return value format, but the purpose and usage guidance are sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, especially with the schema covering parameter semantics.

  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%, meeting the high-coverage threshold, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description text does not need to add parameter-level meaning; it only mentions outputs like 'unit conversions' and 'truncated titles', which are consequences of parameter processing rather than direct parameter semantics.

  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-resource pair ('Compile a structured workout into the SuuntoPlus guide format') and explicitly states it returns without uploading, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workouts and describe_backend. The phrase 'Use this first' reinforces its unique role.

  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?

  Clear guidance is provided: 'Use this first' followed by what it surfaces (unit conversions, truncated titles, validation errors) and why (catch mistakes before they reach the watch). This implies it's a pre-upload validation step, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative upload tools or when not to use it.

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

• describe_backendA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the context that backends differ in capability, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format or performance characteristics. With read-only status already declared, the added value is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

  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 the core function, and the second sentence provides actionable usage advice. No redundancy or fluff.

  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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It explains the output at a high level (active backend and supported operations) and does not need an output schema.

  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, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by not omitting anything 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 uses the specific verb 'report' with the resource 'active backend' and 'which operations it supports', clearly distinguishing it from the workout-related sibling tools. The title reinforces the same.

  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 instructs to 'Check this before planning a sequence of changes', providing clear timing guidance. It also mentions that 'backends differ' which explains why checking is necessary. No alternatives are named, but none are needed given the tool's unique introspection role.

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