Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• calculatorC
  2.7/5.0
  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 but only states the function without mentioning error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance characteristics, or output format. It lacks details on what the tool returns or any behavioral traits beyond the minimal purpose.

  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, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy 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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively despite the good schema coverage.

  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 the parameters (operation, a, b). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Perform basic mathematical operations' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'basic' operations or which resources are involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (current_time, echo) since they serve completely different functions, but the description remains vague about scope.

  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 contexts it's appropriate. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic function stated.

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

• echoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'echoes back' the message, implying a simple read/return operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. 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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Echo back the provided message.' There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by directly explaining the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 low complexity (one simple parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values, which could be helpful for an agent. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps in operational context.

  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 description mentions 'the provided message,' which aligns with the single parameter 'message' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already describes 'message' as 'The message to echo back'), the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('echo back') and resource ('the provided message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (calculator, current_time), which are completely different functions, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what makes 'echo' unique in this context.

  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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like calculator or current_time, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic function.

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

• current_timeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like timezone handling, format of returned time, whether it's real-time or cached, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks details on return format or behavioral nuances. It covers the basic purpose adequately but doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent use without additional assumptions.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics (none exist), which is appropriate, earning a baseline score above 3 due to the absence of parameters.

  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 'Get the current date and time' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current date and time') with specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools (calculator, echo) by focusing on time retrieval rather than computation or message echoing.

  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 context (when current time is needed) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations is provided.

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