Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_timeC
  2.9/5.0
  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 conversion action but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid timezone identifiers), output format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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, efficient sentence: 'Convert time from one timezone to another.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the action.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (time conversion with multiple parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., converted time string), error conditions, or behavioral details like timezone validation. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters with their types, formats, and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Convert time from one timezone to another.' It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('time'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_time' or 'get_system_timezone,' which are read-only operations rather than conversion tools.

  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 conversion is needed over simply retrieving current time or timezone information. 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.

• get_current_dateC
  2.9/5.0
  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 what the tool does but doesn't cover important traits like error handling (e.g., invalid timezone inputs), output format, or any side effects. For a tool with no 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating key features, but it's still highly concise.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (date/time operations with parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or how parameters affect the output (e.g., what 'includeTime' adds). For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves critical gaps for the agent.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('timezone' and 'includeTime'). The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'specific timezone' and 'day of week information' but not elaborating on parameter usage or interactions. With high schema coverage, 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current date in a specific timezone with day of week information.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('current date'), and key features (timezone-specific, includes day of week). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_current_time' or 'get_system_timezone,' which likely have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'get_current_time' or 'convert_time,' nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection, resulting in a low score.

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

• get_system_timezoneB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., timezone name, offset), potential errors, or system dependencies. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, without annotations or output schema, it fails to explain what the return value includes (e.g., timezone identifier, UTC offset), which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively in context with siblings.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for this case, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

  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 'system's current timezone', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_date' or 'get_current_time', which might provide related but distinct time information.

  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 like 'get_current_time' or 'convert_time'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• get_current_timeA
  3.5/5.0
  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 the tool's behavior (returns current time with formatting) but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response structure. It adds basic context on timezone and format, but doesn't cover potential issues like invalid timezone inputs or default behavior beyond format.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the current date and time') and adds key details (timezone, formatting). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read-only tool but incomplete. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values (e.g., format examples), error cases, or system dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

  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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds marginal value by summarizing 'specific timezone' and 'various formatting options', but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., IANA identifiers, enum values). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'current date and time', specifying timezone and formatting options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_date' (date only) and 'convert_time' (conversion), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_system_timezone', which might overlap in purpose.

  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 for obtaining formatted time in a timezone, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_current_date' for date-only or 'convert_time' for time conversion. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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