Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_activity_appropriatenessA
  3.8/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool considers (time of day, cultural/religious observances, work restrictions, local customs) but lacks details on output format, error handling, or data sources. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with complex logic.

  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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and following with details and examples. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples more tightly.

  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 complexity (multiple cultural systems) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the scope and inputs well but does not explain the return values or potential limitations, which is a gap for a decision-making tool.

  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 documents all parameters. The description adds context by explaining the activity parameter checks 'calls, work, meetings' and implies broader cultural considerations, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('check if the current time is appropriate') and resources ('activities in a given location'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_prayer_times and query_time by focusing on appropriateness rather than raw time data. It provides concrete examples of activities and use cases.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool with examples like 'Can I call someone in X?' or 'Is it a good time to contact Y?', providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or explicitly differentiate from alternatives like query_time for basic time queries.

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

• query_prayer_timesA
  3.9/5.0
  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 and discloses key behavioral traits: it returns all 5 daily prayers, next prayer time, Qibla direction, and automatically selects calculation methods. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two efficient sentences that cover purpose, returns, calculation methods, and query options without any wasted words, 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.

  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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps: it explains what the tool does and parameters, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints like rate limits, which could hinder agent usage.

  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 documents both parameters well. The description adds marginal value by explaining that omitting 'prayer' returns all prayers, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get Islamic prayer times') and resources ('for any location'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns prayer times, Qibla direction, and uses calculation methods, unlike generic time or appropriateness checking tools.

  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 this tool (to get Islamic prayer times) and implies usage by mentioning support for specific prayers or all prayers, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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

• query_timeA
  3.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by listing the broad capabilities (9 cultural calendars, astronomical events, religious fasting status, etc.) and providing example queries that demonstrate the tool's scope. However, it doesn't mention limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with ambiguous queries, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

  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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific capabilities and example queries. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some capability listings. The structure effectively communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary repetition.

  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 the tool's complexity (handling 9 cultural calendars, astronomical events, religious fasting, etc.) with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by comprehensively listing capabilities and providing example queries. However, it doesn't explain what the return values look like or address potential limitations, leaving some gaps for a tool with such broad functionality.

  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 both parameters. The description adds value by providing multiple concrete examples of valid 'query' parameter values ('What time is it in Tokyo?', 'Is it a good time to call Berlin?', etc.), but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'user_timezone' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 purpose: 'Query temporal information using natural language' followed by a comprehensive list of capabilities including current time, timezone info, 9 cultural calendars, astronomical events, religious fasting status, work restrictions, and activity appropriateness. It distinguishes from siblings by covering a broader temporal scope than 'check_activity_appropriateness' and 'query_prayer_times'.

  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 this tool through multiple example queries ('What time is it in Tokyo?', 'Is it a good time to call Berlin?', etc.), showing it handles diverse temporal questions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or when to prefer sibling tools like 'check_activity_appropriateness' or 'query_prayer_times' for more specific needs.

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