Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_eventB
  3.4/5.0
  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 only states 'Deletes an event' without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, requiring any permissions, or detailing side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  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 very short and to the point, using a single sentence plus an args block. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the typo 'calender' is a minor flaw. No word is wasted.

  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 that this is a simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks any mention of behavioral traits like irreversibility, error behavior, or return values, which are important for a delete tool, so it is not fully 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 schema has no descriptions for the event_id parameter, so the description's 'Args: event_id: Event identifier' adds some semantic value by clarifying the parameter's role. However, this is minimal and largely redundant with the parameter name and the tool's purpose, so the description does not substantially compensate for the 0% 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 verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'an event from the calender', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tools list_events, create_event, and update_event, which represent different CRUD 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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident from the verb and the sibling tool names, which implies that this tool is for removing events. The description does not provide any exclusions or additional context.

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

• create_eventA
  3.9/5.0
  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 it creates an event but does not mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., sending invitations), success/failure responses, or any mutation-related caveats. The lack of such context is a notable gap for a create operation.

  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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args list. It is front-loaded with the action and then efficiently details each parameter without redundancy.

  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?

  The description covers the action and parameter semantics well, but lacks any mention of return value or error handling, and the tool has no output schema. Given there are six parameters and no annotations, the gap is minor; the essential invocation details are present.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly compensates by documenting every parameter: ISO 8601 format with examples for start/end, IANA timezone for timeZone, and defaults for optional description/location. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Creates a calendar event using the provided details,' which clearly identifies the action (create) and the target resource (calendar event). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events, update_event, and delete_event.

  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 tool's usage is implied by its name and the verb 'creates,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_event (e.g., for new events) or any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

• update_eventA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavior: fields not included retain existing values, indicating a partial update. It also provides format details for start/end/timeZone. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, idempotency, or what happens when setting a field to null, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

  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 well-structured with a concise introductory sentence followed by a clean Args block. Every parameter is listed with its format and optionality. The repetition of 'Defaults to None' is minor and acceptable for readability. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core update semantics and parameter formats but lacks important context: return value, error behavior, null clearing, and prerequisites. It is adequate for basic use but not comprehensive for an agent handling edge cases or unexpected scenarios.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block provides meaningful detail beyond the schema: ISO 8601 format examples, timezone database naming, and default behavior (None). This helps an agent construct valid calls, though some inter-parameter details (e.g., timeZone applicability) are missing.

  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: 'Updates an event by replacing specified fields with new values.' The partial-update behavior is explicitly stated, which distinguishes this from create and delete siblings. It is clear that this tool modifies an existing event.

  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 context for using this tool is clear: it updates an existing event, as opposed to list, create, or delete. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tool names are not referenced in the description, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

• list_eventsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 that the tool queries the calendar and returns a list of matching events. It also explains the exclusive time-bound semantics and the requirement for local time with timezone offset, adding useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list events' statement.

  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 well-structured with an introductory sentence and a clean Args list. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters, and every line conveys relevant information without redundancy.

  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 complexity (six optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: parameter semantics, time format requirements, filter combination, and the return type. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates with a detailed Args section. It explains the meaning of each parameter (summary, description, location, timeMin, timeMax, maxResults) and includes format constraints, adding significant value beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Retrieve a list of calendar events based on specified filters,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this read-oriented list tool from sibling tools like create_event, delete_event, and update_event.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool (when retrieving filtered calendar events) and explains that filters are optional and combinable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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