Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_activityC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'Get details' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, error handling, or response format beyond 'The activity details.' For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no wasted words, though the Args section could be more integrated into the main text for better flow.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error cases, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'activity details' include, which are crucial for proper tool invocation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'activity_id' is 'The ID of the activity' and 'include_all_efforts' is 'Whether to include all segment efforts,' which clarifies purpose but doesn't provide format details or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, this partially compensates but remains basic, aligning with the baseline expectation when schema coverage is low.

  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 purpose: 'Get details of a specific activity.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activity'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activity_segments' or 'get_user_activities', which likely retrieve related but different data.

  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 sibling tools like 'get_activity_segments' (which might retrieve parts of an activity) or 'get_user_activities' (which might list multiple activities), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

• get_activity_segmentsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'Get[s] the segments' and returns a 'List of segment efforts for the activity', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'segment efforts' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 main purpose stated first ('Get the segments of a specific activity.'). The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the separation into sections might slightly reduce flow. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

  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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'segment efforts' are, how the list is structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'activity_id: The ID of the activity', which is already clear from the schema's title 'Activity Id' and type 'integer'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by providing additional context, such as where to find the activity ID or format requirements. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but it still lacks enrichment.

  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 purpose: 'Get the segments of a specific activity.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('segments of a specific activity'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_activities' in terms of what specific data it returns versus those tools.

  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 sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_activities', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing this tool over others. The only implied usage is when you need segments for a specific activity, but this is basic and lacks comparative guidance.

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

• get_user_activitiesB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It mentions that it returns a 'List of activities' and includes pagination parameters, which hints at a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes an 'activity' (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There's no wasted verbiage.

  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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on authentication, error cases, sibling differentiation, and the structure of returned activities. Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format from the vague 'List of activities'. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and siblings.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing all four parameters ('before', 'after', 'page', 'per_page') with brief explanations in the 'Args' section. It clarifies that 'before' and 'after' are epoch timestamps for filtering, and 'page' and 'per_page' handle pagination. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail defaults or constraints like valid ranges.

  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 purpose: 'Get the authenticated user's activities.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user's activities'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_activity_segments', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 its siblings ('get_activity' and 'get_activity_segments'). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The only implied usage is for retrieving the user's activities, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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