Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• next_runsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions return format (ISO-8601 with offsets) but lacks disclosure on side effects, error conditions, timezone handling, or any constraints beyond count max. For a read-only preview tool, more transparency is expected.

  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, no filler. First sentence defines action and output; second gives usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured.

  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 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adds enough context about output format and use case. Slight gap on timezone details, but overall complete for this tool's complexity.

  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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by specifying that output includes relative offsets, which supplements the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 for high coverage, plus extra meaning justifies 4.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool computes next scheduled run times for a cron expression. Verb 'compute' and resource 'cron expression' are specific. Sibling tools (parse_cron, validate_cron, cron_presets) have distinct purposes, and the description implies differentiation without explicit mention.

  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?

  Explicitly says to use this tool to preview when a job will fire before committing. Provides clear context, but no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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

• validate_cronA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes specific catches (impossible schedules, OR-semantics, etc.) and output types (warnings, observations, optimization suggestions, yearly run count). No annotations provided, so description carries burden well.

  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?

  Front-loaded with purpose, then lists caught issues, then output. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be tighter, but effective.

  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?

  Describes various edge cases and output clearly. No output schema, but explanation of return types (warnings, observations, etc.) is sufficient for agent to understand tool behavior.

  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?

  Only one parameter 'expression' with schema coverage 100%. Description adds no further detail beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'validate' and resource 'cron expression', lists specific checks (impossible schedules, OR-semantics, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings like parse_cron and next_runs which have different purposes.

  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?

  Explicitly recommends use 'BEFORE deploying a cron job to catch silent failures'. Context implies when not to use (when parsing or generating runs), but no explicit when-not or alternative tool names.

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

• cron_presetsA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It describes the operation as returning a library with labels, but does not disclose any potential side effects, limits, or detailed output format. Acceptable for a simple read-only 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: first states purpose with examples, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

  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 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not detail the exact output structure, but the mention of 'plain-English labels' implies a basic format, which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  No parameters exist (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the content of the library (common presets with labels) beyond the empty 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 returns a library of common cron expression presets with examples (every 5 min, hourly, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like parse_cron, validate_cron, and next_runs by focusing on presets.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when a user asks for a common or standard schedule'. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context with sibling tools implies alternatives.

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

• parse_cronA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description makes clear this is a parse-only operation that produces text. It does not mention side effects or destruction, and given the nature (parsing), that is sufficient 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?

  Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, supported features, and usage guidance. No redundant or vague wording.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no required output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it accepts, and when to use it. No gaps.

  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 one parameter, but the schema's description is just an example. The tool's description adds valuable detail about supported extensions (L, W, #, named months/days), which helps the agent construct valid inputs beyond basic cron syntax.

  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 parses a cron expression and returns a human-readable description. It specifies the supported formats (5-field standard plus extensions) and explicitly says 'Use this to explain any cron schedule,' making purpose and scope clear.

  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 the tool is for explaining cron schedules in plain English, which distinguishes it from siblings like validate_cron (syntax check) and next_runs (future times). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, so a slight deduction.

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