Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• wedaka_clock_outA
  3.8/5.0
  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 the ability to 'Support custom date/time for retroactive entries,' which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether a prior clock-in is required, whether duplicate entries are handled, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and adds the key behavioral detail about retroactive entries without waste. Every sentence 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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core purpose and the notable retroactive entry feature. It does not cover edge cases like prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the complete schema, it is reasonably complete. A slightly more detailed note about validation or return values would elevate it to 5.

  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 already fully documents the parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'custom date/time' which maps to clock_date and clock_time, but it does not explain the note parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Clock out' and 'Records the end of work for an employee.' It uses a specific verb (clock out/record) and resource (end of work), and the sibling tool wedaka_clock_in makes the distinction obvious without needing explicit differentiation.

  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: use when an employee is ending their workday. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like wedaka_clock_in for starting work or wedaka_get_timelog for viewing logs. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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

• wedaka_check_work_dayA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return values (1, 2, 3) and implies a read-only check, but does not mention edge cases, error handling, or safety details. This is adequate for a simple check tool but lacks depth.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential return value details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

  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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It is complete for typical usage, though it does not address invalid date behavior, which is a minor gap.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'date' with format description. The description only adds 'specific date,' which does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if a specific date is a work day.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the return type explanation (1=work day, 2=holiday, 3=weekend) further clarifies its purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clock in/out and get timelog.

  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 description implies the use case: checking if a date is a work day. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the sibling tools are clearly different, so the context is unambiguous. The description effectively communicates when to use this tool.

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

• wedaka_clock_inA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (recording start of work) and a notable feature (custom date/time for retroactive entries), but doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. This is more transparent than a bare 'Clock in' but still leaves some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Clock in'), and every sentence adds value: what it does, for whom, and a key capability. There is no unnecessary fluff.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema. The description clearly explains the primary purpose and the retroactive date/time feature, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't explain return values, but that is not required given the simplicity and lack of output schema.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about retroactive entries for date/time parameters, but it doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.

  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 action ('Clock in') and the resource ('Records the start of work for an employee'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wedaka_clock_out (clocking out) and wedaka_get_timelog (retrieving logs), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

  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 description implies usage at the start of work and explicitly mentions support for retroactive entries, giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use wedaka_clock_out for clocking out'), but the sibling names and clear purpose make the intended usage obvious.

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

• wedaka_get_timelogA
  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. The verb 'Get' and the phrase 'Returns...' imply a read-only operation and disclose the content of the response. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention any permission requirements, or clarify if it returns data for the current user or all employees. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

  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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second summarizes the expected return contents. No redundancy or fluff.

  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 two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. It does not detail the structure of the returned data (e.g., list vs object), and it omits whether the logs are for the current employee or all employees, but these are minor gaps for the tool's simplicity. The description is largely 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?

  The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (year and month), including ranges and examples. The description only adds the phrase 'for a specific month,' which does not meaningfully enhance the schema's parameter documentation. 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving employee time log records for a specific month. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time log records'), and the mention of 'clock-in/out times, leave records, and work day information' provides concrete scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wedaka_clock_in/out (actions) and wedaka_check_work_day (single-day check).

  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 description implies use when monthly aggregated time log data is needed, which differentiates it from the daily/action-oriented sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance but provides clear context.

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