Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• apple_health_workoutsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies read-only safety, but description omits what data structure returns (list of workouts, duration, types, calories), behavior when no workouts exist, or whether this includes all activity types. No output schema compounds this gap.

  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?

  Extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with verb-first structure. No redundant phrases. However, brevity arguably underserves tool's behavioral complexity given lack of annotations and output schema.

  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?

  Acceptable for a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, but gaps remain. Missing: return value description (critical without output schema), explicit sibling differentiation, and confirmation of read-only behavior. Minimum viable but not exemplary.

  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% (date parameter fully documented with format and default). Description references 'a date' acknowledging the parameter exists, but adds no semantic detail beyond schema's 'YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today'. Baseline score appropriate given schema completeness.

  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?

  Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'workout sessions'. Scope 'for a date' implies filtering by specific date. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on individual sessions vs aggregates (daily/trends), though explicit differentiation would strengthen this.

  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 versus apple_health_daily or apple_health_trends. Agent must infer that 'workouts' retrieves individual exercise sessions while siblings handle aggregated metrics. No mention of prerequisites or date range limitations.

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

• apple_health_dailyB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It enumerates the data categories returned, which helps understand scope. However, it lacks behavioral details such as error handling for future dates, privacy/auth requirements, data availability when Health permissions are denied, or whether values are summed/averaged.

  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?

  Single efficient sentence front-loaded with the action. The colon-separated list of metrics is compact and readable. No extraneous text, though slightly dense.

  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?

  Without output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the seven metric categories returned. However, for a health data tool with no annotations, it should clarify behavior regarding missing data (null values vs zeros) and permission requirements to be fully 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 has 100% coverage (date field fully documented with format and default), establishing baseline 3. Description does not add semantic context about the date parameter (e.g., timezone handling, how 'today' is determined), but none is required given complete schema 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?

  Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Apple Health daily summary'. Lists specific metric categories (steps, energy, HR, HRV, sleep stages, body comp, workouts) clarifying scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'apple_health_workouts' despite mentioning workouts in its data list, nor contrast with 'apple_health_trends'.

  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?

  Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'trends' or 'workouts' tools. The inclusion of 'workouts' in the daily summary list without qualification creates potential ambiguity about whether this returns summary workout statistics or detailed records.

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

• apple_health_trendsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what metrics are returned (steps, HR, HRV, sleep, weight) which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks information on data availability (what happens if no data exists?), whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), or rate limits.

  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 consists of a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical list of metrics is compact and informative. It could benefit from a second sentence addressing sibling differentiation, but as written it is appropriately sized.

  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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the specific health metrics returned. However, for a data-retrieval tool with no annotations, it should confirm the read-only nature and mention any data availability constraints.

  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% for the single 'days' parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself, though the phrase 'date range' contextualizes the 'days' parameter appropriately.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily health metrics'), and scopes the output with specific examples (steps, HR, HRV, sleep, weight). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'apple_health_daily' by specifying 'date range' versus implied single-day scope, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

  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 by the tool name ('trends'), the parameter ('days' to look back), and the phrase 'date range,' suggesting multi-day analysis. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to select trends versus daily snapshots or workout-specific data.

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