Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• deleteEventC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly implies a destructive mutation, it does not state whether the operation is permanent, whether confirmation or special permissions are required, or what side effects occur (e.g., removal from attendee calendars). The description is too thin to adequately characterize the risk.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and key parameter efficiently, though it sacrifices some essential detail for brevity.

  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?

  For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficient. It does not cover the optional calendarId, authentication or permission expectations, undoing behavior, or any failure/response semantics. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on this definition alone.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 by explaining parameters. It does identify eventId as the core identifier, but it completely omits calendarId, which is a parameter in the schema with a default of 'primary'. The vague phrase 'Google Calendar' doesn't clarify how the calendar is selected, leaving an agent uncertain about the optional parameter.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('an event'), and a unique identifier ('event ID'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like createEvent, getEvents, and updateEvent. It unambiguously states the operation and object.

  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 implies that the tool is used to delete an event, but provides no guidance on when this tool should be used over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and no exclusions. It does not mention that calendarId is optional or defaulted, nor when a deletion might fail.

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

• updateEventA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields keep their current values'), but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the irreversibility of the update. A 3 reflects that it adds some valuable behavior context while leaving significant 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?

  Two sentences with no fluff; the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds essential behavioral nuance about field omission. Every word earns its place.

  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 nested event object with complex date/reminder/recurrence schemas and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits how the update interacts with required fields, what happens to attendees on date changes, and any authentication or error behavior. An agent needs more context to invoke correctly.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 for explaining eventId, event, and calendarId. It only generically refers to 'fields' and the partial-update behavior, giving no specific meaning for the parameters. It fails to clarify what eventId identifies or how calendarId scopes the operation.

  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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Google Calendar event'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like createEvent and deleteEvent. The phrase 'existing' signals that it modifies rather than creates.

  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 use for updating existing events by contrasting with creating, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer the use case from 'existing,' but no direct guidance is provided.

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

• createEventA
  3.6/5.0
  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 lists supported features but does not mention whether attendee invitations are sent, whether authentication is required, what the created event response looks like, or whether creation is reversible. 'Create' implies mutation, but little else is disclosed.

  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 one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key capability details into a short supporting clause. Every word earns its place.

  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 complexity of the nested event schema, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, this short description leaves important operational gaps: authentication prerequisites, default calendar behavior, return shape, and side effects like attendee emails. The feature list is helpful but insufficient for safe, confident invocation of a mutation 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 reported as 0%, and the event object is large and nested. The description partially compensates by calling out all-day events, attendees, reminders, and RFC5545 recurrence rules, which map to schema properties. Still, it does not explain the required summary/start/end fields, the calendarId default of 'primary', or the overall structure of the event object.

  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-resource pair: 'Create an event on a Google Calendar.' It also names supported features, which clarifies scope. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools getEvents, updateEvent, deleteEvent, and authenticate without any ambiguity.

  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 imperative 'Create an event' provides clear, unambiguous context for when to use the tool. However, it gives no explicit exclusion like 'use updateEvent to modify an existing event' or 'call authenticate first,' so it stops short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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

• getEventsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation and the time-range clause provides useful scoping, but the description omits any mention of auth needs, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid calendar IDs.

  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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and optional scope.

  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 straightforward list operation with a fully described schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement about auth requirements and return shape, but the sibling set and parameter documentation provide enough context to avoid gross misuse.

  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?

  All five parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the time range is optional, which is already encoded by the nullable timeMin/timeMax 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 states the exact action ('List'), the resource ('events from a Google Calendar'), and the optional time-range scope. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling mutation tools (createEvent, updateEvent, deleteEvent) and authenticate.

  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 this is the read/query tool for calendar events, and the sibling names make the contrast obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or calendar ownership.

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

• authenticateA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond the name by disclosing the browser consent behavior and that tokens are stored in memory, which implies they are not persisted across sessions. It does not cover failure modes or re-authentication, but it is meaningfully transparent for a zero-parameter 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 concise sentences with no filler. The action, side effect, and storage behavior are all included in minimal space, and the purpose is front-loaded.

  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 zero-parameter OAuth tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the user-facing behavior, and the outcome (tokens in memory). An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and understand its effect; nothing essential is missing.

  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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 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 states a specific action ('Start the Google Calendar OAuth flow') and gives concrete behavioral details: it opens a browser window for consent and stores tokens in memory. This clearly distinguishes it from the event-related sibling 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 makes it clear this is the authentication step for Google Calendar, which an agent can infer should precede getEvents, createEvent, and other calendar operations. It does not explicitly articulate when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for tool selection.

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