Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• timely_employee_infoA
  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 burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists returned fields, but does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or behavior when no match is found. It is adequate but not thorough.

  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 concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value; no filler.

  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?

  Given 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists return fields and identification methods. Missing error behavior, but overall sufficient for a simple get operation.

  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 adds value by explaining that the employee can be identified by register, tin_number, and/or phone, and notes the fallback for company_register. However, this does not significantly extend beyond the schema descriptions.

  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 'Get' and the resource 'a single employee's profile', listing key fields (name, register, phone, salary, bank details). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle attendance or employer info.

  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 when needing an employee profile, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide when-not conditions. The context of sibling tool names gives some guidance.

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

• timely_overview_attdA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (attendance details, pagination) but does not mention read-only nature, authorization needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 concise sentences: first stating purpose and output, second providing parameter guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description explains the returned data (worked days/hours, late, absent, etc.) and pagination. It covers core functionality but omits response format and error conditions.

  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 each parameter described. The description adds only minor rephrasing (e.g., div_id usage) and no new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it is a company-wide attendance report between two dates, returning per-employee details with pagination. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the company-wide scope and listing specific attendance metrics.

  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 provides explicit guidance on the div_id parameter (set to department id or '0' for all departments) and implies usage for generating overall attendance reports. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools like timely_employee_attd.

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

• timely_employee_attdA
  4.1/5.0
  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 that the tool reads and returns data ('returns supposed vs. actual worked days and hours'), implying a safe read operation. No mention of side effects or permissions, but adequate for a simple report 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details. No unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

  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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description partially covers usage but lacks detail on return format (e.g., per-day or aggregated). It explains identification but not date range behavior. Acceptable but not fully complete.

  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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by clarifying that at least one of register or phone should be provided for identification, which is not enforced by the schema's required fields.

  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 it returns an attendance report for a single employee between two dates, contrasting with sibling tools like timely_overview_attd for multiple employees. The verb 'returns' and resource 'attendance report' are specific.

  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 needing a single employee's attendance, and specifies identification via register number or phone. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, though context with sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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

• timely_employer_infoA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a read operation (returns company name) but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits.

  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 long, efficiently conveying purpose, input, output, and a use case without unnecessary words.

  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?

  For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its input constraints, and its output, making it complete for an AI agent to use.

  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 coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the parameter expects a 7-digit company register and notes a fallback to TIMELY_COMPANY_REGISTER environment variable, which is useful context beyond the schema.

  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 retrieves organization info given a 7-digit company register and returns the registered company name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with employee or attendance data.

  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 provides a specific use case: verifying if a register number is valid. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.

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