Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_workout_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'Markdown-formatted workout details' but doesn't cover other important aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if no workout exists for the date), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic return format.

  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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, the second specifies the date format, and the third describes the return content. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the date format into the initial sentence.

  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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the parameter format and return format, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or sibling tool differentiation. For a simple read operation, this is minimally viable, but it doesn't fully prepare an agent for edge cases or optimal usage.

  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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that the 'date' parameter should be in 'YYYY-MM-DD format', which is crucial semantic information not present in the schema (which only indicates it's a string). With only one parameter, this clarification is sufficient to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

  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's purpose: 'Get detailed workout information for a specific date.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('workout information'), and scope ('for a specific date'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_batch_workouts' or 'list_workout_dates' beyond the single-date focus.

  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 its siblings. It mentions retrieving information 'for a specific date' but doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'get_batch_workouts' (likely for multiple dates) or 'list_workout_dates' (likely for listing dates without details). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• get_batch_workoutsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'Markdown-formatted workout details,' which adds some context about output format. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., for invalid dates), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 well-structured and concise, with zero waste. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter format, and return format adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects) and doesn't fully address sibling tool differentiation, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer usage correctly.

  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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates 'dates' is a required array of strings, with 0% description coverage. The description specifies the format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and clarifies it's a 'List of dates,' providing essential context that compensates for the low schema coverage. However, it doesn't detail constraints like date range limits or handling of empty lists.

  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's purpose: 'Get detailed workout information for multiple dates in a single call.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed workout information'), and scope ('multiple dates in a single call'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workout_info' (single date vs. batch) or 'list_workout_dates' (list dates vs. get details), which prevents a perfect score.

  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 context by mentioning 'multiple dates in a single call,' suggesting efficiency for batch operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workout_info' (for single dates) or 'list_workout_dates' (for listing dates only). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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

• list_workout_datesA
  3.6/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool returns a list of dates as strings, which adds context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). The description is adequate but has gaps.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting could be more front-loaded (e.g., integrating key details into the opening sentence). It's efficient with minimal waste.

  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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and specifies the return format. However, it lacks context on sibling tools and some behavioral aspects, leaving minor gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'start_date' and 'end_date' are in 'YYYY-MM-DD format', specifies that 'start_date' is required and 'end_date' is optional with a default to today. This covers all parameters comprehensively, exceeding baseline expectations.

  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's purpose: 'List all workout dates within a date range.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('workout dates'), and scope ('within a date range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_batch_workouts' or 'get_workout_info', which prevents a perfect score.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over 'get_batch_workouts' or 'get_workout_info'. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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