Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_timezoneB
  3.3/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention how source timezones are handled, DST behavior, return format, or error cases, leaving important operational details implicit.

  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 front-loads the core action. 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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves the return format and the optional sourceTimezone edge cases unstated, which would help the agent use the tool more confidently.

  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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 ('Render') and clearly names both the input (ISO-8601 timestamp) and the desired outcome (wall-clock time in a target timezone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_time and time_between.

  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, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It simply describes the operation without contextualizing it against siblings such as add_duration or time_between.

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

• get_current_timeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns time in three formats and accepts an optional timezone, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or side-effect-free. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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 sentence (18 words) that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns (epoch, ISO-8601 timestamp, wall-clock time in timezone). No additional information is necessary for correct invocation.

  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% (the only parameter 'timezone' already has a description including 'Defaults to UTC'). The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 'Return' and the resource 'current time' with specific outputs (epoch, ISO-8601 timestamp, wall-clock time in timezone). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_timezone and time_between by focusing on the current moment rather than conversions or calculations.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., convert_timezone, time_between). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• time_betweenA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output breakdown (days/hours/minutes/seconds), a human-readable summary, consistent sign behavior, and a direction field. It does not cover edge cases like invalid timestamps or DST, but the disclosed details give good behavioral context.

  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, both information-dense. The first delivers the core purpose, the second highlights the sign and direction semantics. No redundant or filler content.

  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?

  Even without an output schema, the description covers the main return components and behaviors. The tool is relatively simple, and the described details are sufficient for an agent to understand what will come back. Minor gaps like exact return type or error handling prevent a perfect score.

  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 all three parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond restating the concept of the interval; baseline of 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 clearly states the tool computes 'exact elapsed time between two ISO-8601 timestamps', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also distinguishes from siblings like add_duration or convert_timezone by focusing purely on time intervals.

  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?

  The purpose is self-evident: when an agent needs elapsed time between two timestamps, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly call out when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it misses the bar for explicit guidance.

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

• infoA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's disclosure of a read operation is consistent. It adds value by specifying the exact return content (name, version, build commit, runtime, capability counts), which is not captured in the annotations. No behavioral contradictions or hidden effects.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose ('Returns identity and build information for this server') and immediately lists the specific fields. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

  Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is read-only, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns (identity and build info with listed fields). The context of sibling tools is clear, and no additional information is needed for correct invocation.

  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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. It adds no additional parameter information but none is 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 explicitly states the tool returns 'identity and build information for this server' and lists the specific fields (name, version, build commit, runtime, capability counts). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all time-related operations.

  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. However, the sibling tools are all time-focused (get_current_time, convert_timezone, etc.), so the context implies this is the tool for server info. No explicit guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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

• add_durationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains DST boundary behavior, month-end clamping, exact elapsed time for time units, and the '-' subtraction prefix. This is exemplary transparency for a pure arithmetic tool.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently details edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

  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 moderately complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral nuances (DST, month-end, subtraction) thoroughly. It does not mention return value format or error cases, but those are relatively predictable for this operation, so the gap is minor.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how duration units behave (calendar-aware vs exact elapsed time) and how timezone affects wall-clock arithmetic, which enriches the parameter meanings.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an ISO-8601 duration to a timestamp, in a timezone.' It clearly distinguishes this arithmetic tool from siblings like time_between (difference), convert_timezone (zone conversion), and get_current_time (current time).

  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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate—duration arithmetic with calendar-aware behavior—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tool names imply the differentiation, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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