Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_activitiesB
  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 the full burden. It discloses pagination support but omits details such as sort order, filtering capabilities, return format, or any authentication/authorization requirements. This is minimal disclosure for a list endpoint.

  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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and mentions the key feature (pagination). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 simple two-parameter list tool with fully documented schema, the description provides adequate context. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain the response structure (e.g., pagination metadata, fields returned), which would be helpful for an agent to parse results.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination aligns with the page and per_page parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already provide defaults and the maximum value.

  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 retrieves a list of athlete activities ('アスリートのアクティビティ一覧を取得します'), which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from the sibling get_activity (singular vs. plural), though it does not explicitly contrast with it.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions pagination, implying batch retrieval, but does not state when to choose this over get_activity or other sibling tools.

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

• get_athlete_statsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics but does not explicitly disclose it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention side effects, required permissions, or return format. The 'get' verb implies reading, but this is not stated.

  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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it includes illustrative examples. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context by giving example outputs (total distance, total time) and using 'など' to indicate additional stats. It does not fully enumerate all possible statistics, but it is adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

  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% with a single parameter athlete_id described as 'アスリートのID'. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but because the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 '取得' (get) with the resource 'athlete stats', and provides concrete examples like total distance and total time. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_athlete (profile) and get_activity (individual activities).

  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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_athlete or get_activities, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_activityA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('取得'), but does not disclose behaviors such as error responses, required permissions, or whether it returns full activity data like splits. The basic getter nature is conveyed, but additional transparency is missing.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

  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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description provides minimal context—no mention of return structure, common error cases, or authorization. While adequate for a straightforward getter, it leaves gaps that could be filled to help the agent anticipate behavior.

  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 schema has 100% coverage for activity_id, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

  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 ('取得します' = fetches) and identifies the resource ('特定のアクティビティの詳細情報' = detailed info for a specific activity), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activities (plural list) and get_athlete (different resource).

  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 fetching a single activity's details, contrasting with get_activities which presumably lists activities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions.

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

• get_athleteA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only says 'retrieves' profile information, which implies a read operation, but lacks any detail about authentication requirements (beyond the word 'authenticated'), error cases, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal coverage for a tool that has no other structured metadata.

  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, focused sentence with no filler words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple resource-retrieval tool.

  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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is the only source of context. It covers the core purpose but is vague about what 'profile information' includes, how authentication is handled, and what to expect in the response. This leaves a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool or interpret its result.

  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, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed.

  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 verb '取得します' (retrieve) and the resource '認証されたアスリートのプロフィール情報' (profile information of the authenticated athlete). It unambiguously distinguishes the tool from its siblings (get_activities, get_activity, get_athlete_stats) by focusing specifically on the athlete's profile.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the usage is implied by the tool name and description: when you need the authenticated athlete's profile, this is the tool. No alternatives are mentioned, so it stops at implied usage.

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