Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_current_weatherC
  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 action ('Get weather info') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'weather info' includes (e.g., temperature, conditions), potential errors, or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

  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%, with the parameter 'city' documented in the schema as '城市名称, 比如北京 上海 广州'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the city is required, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 ('weather info') with a specific scope ('for a given city'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_date', which is unrelated, 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context. The description is purely functional without any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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

• get_current_dateB
  3.2/5.0
  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 explains the conditional return behavior based on input, but doesn't mention important aspects like timezone handling, date format consistency, error handling for invalid inputs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description covers basic functionality but lacks depth about operational characteristics.

  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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that efficiently explain the tool's behavior. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the conditional logic. No wasted words, though it could potentially be structured more clearly for non-native speakers.

  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 moderate complexity (date calculations with relative units) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about return format, error conditions, timezone considerations, and doesn't leverage the sibling context. For a date tool with conditional logic, more behavioral context would be helpful.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'date' parameter with examples. The description adds marginal value by explaining the conditional logic (if user provides date vs. relative units), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's implied in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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: '获取当前日期' (get current date) and explains it returns the current date when no date is provided, or calculates relative dates like yesterday/tomorrow. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'get_current_weather' tool, which handles weather data rather than date calculations.

  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 when to use this tool (when needing current date or relative date calculations) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this versus the 'get_current_weather' sibling or other date-related alternatives. It mentions the conditional logic (if user provides date or relative unit) but doesn't offer broader usage context.

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