Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_timeC
  2.8/5.0
  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 offers minimal information. It states what the tool does (converts time between time zones) but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about time format expectations, error handling, daylight saving time considerations, or what the output looks like. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist, but it fails to provide adequate behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this brevity creates gaps in other dimensions, as a standalone statement it's efficiently front-loaded with the core function.

  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 a tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description is insufficiently complete. It states the basic purpose but provides no guidance on usage, parameter details, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from alternatives. For a time conversion tool that likely has format requirements and behavioral nuances, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meaning, format, or constraints. The description mentions time zone conversion generally but doesn't explain what 'source_timezone', 'time', and 'target_timezone' parameters represent, what time formats are accepted, or what time zone identifiers are supported. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool correctly.

  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 '在不同时区之间转换时间' (convert time between different time zones) clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('time'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_time', which appears to retrieve current time rather than perform conversions.

  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. There's no mention of when this conversion tool should be used instead of the sibling 'get_current_time' tool, nor any context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for time zone conversion.

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

• get_current_timeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid timezones, or provides time formatting details. It mentions the timezone parameter but doesn't describe the return format or any behavioral constraints.

  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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple time retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without preamble.

  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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the time is returned in, how timezone validation works, whether there are default behaviors when no timezone is specified, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this time retrieval operation.

  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 '指定时区' (specified timezone), which corresponds to the single 'timezone' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in the structured schema. The description adds basic semantic context about what the parameter represents but doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., IANA timezone names, UTC offsets) or provide examples.

  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 '获取指定时区的当前时间' clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the current time for a specified timezone. It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('当前时间' - current time), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'convert_time', which likely converts between timezones rather than getting current time.

  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 the sibling tool 'convert_time' or explain the relationship between them. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for using this specific time retrieval function.

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