Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_completed_sinceB
  3.3/5.0
  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. It declares 'Read-only' and mentions an exclusion, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authorization requirements. For a read-only tool, this is minimal 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?

  The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

  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 simplicity (two parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, the time range inclusivity, and the exclusion. It does not specify sorting or limits, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

  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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the time range inclusivity and indicating that 'since' is required (though not marked in schema). This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

  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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'directly completed OmniFocus actions and action groups'. It also specifies the exclusion of project root completion events. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the tool name and context make it distinct.

  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 siblings. It neither states explicit contexts for use nor mentions alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

• get_lean_snapshotA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explicitly declares read-only nature, capped output, and specifically lists what is NOT inferred (waiting, completion, health, etc.). Provides clear behavioral expectations.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only', no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 complexity (capped snapshot with multiple sections) and presence of output schema, description adequately explains what is returned and what is omitted. Complete for its purpose.

  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 coverage is 100% with description for the single parameter (limitPerSection). Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 it returns a capped all-system OmniFocus snapshot with specific content (active projects, attention signals, Inbox tasks) and explicitly lists what is not inferred. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project or get_task by focusing on aggregate snapshot.

  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?

  Description provides context that it is read-only and gives a high-level overview, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_project for details). No direct comparison or exclusions.

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

• get_projectA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries full burden but only states read-only and exact match. Lacks details on error behavior for missing projects or invalid inputs.

  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?

  Single sentence packs key info: read-only, verb, resource, identification methods. No wasted words.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Covering tool purpose, identification methods, and read-only property is sufficient for this simple retrieval tool.

  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 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by stating read-only and exact retrieval, reinforcing mutex constraint.

  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 'Get one exact OmniFocus project by canonical ID or exact name' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_task (task vs project) and search_tags (search).

  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 'Provide either id or name, not both' and labels tool as 'Read-only'. Could mention when not to use (e.g., for tasks) but effectively guides usage.

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

• get_taskA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided; the description compensates by stating 'Read-only' and specifying exact matching. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a straightforward retrieval 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?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the read-only nature and task scope.

  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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It could mention what happens if not found, but is adequate for its purpose.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reiterates 'exact name' and 'case-sensitive' already present in the schema, so 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?

  The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and retrieves one exact task by ID or exact name, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task and search_tags.

  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 usage for exact retrieval, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_tags or get_lean_snapshot. However, the context is clear for a simple getter.

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

• search_tagsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares read-only, defaults to Active Tags, and clarifies it never creates tags. It explains what the search covers (IDs, status, paths, mutual-exclusion). Missing details on rate limits or pagination, but output schema covers return format.

  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 compact, front-loaded with 'Read-only,' and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 three parameters and an output schema, the description covers core purpose, read-only nature, default behavior, and nuance about full paths. It lacks explicit parameter descriptions for 'limit', but the output schema handles return values. Moderately complete.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Use full paths' (relates to query) and 'Defaults to Active Tags' (relates to status). However, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or how to construct queries, leaving gaps.

  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 searches OmniFocus Tags with specific details (canonical IDs, hierarchy paths, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with tasks and projects, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 notes the tool is read-only and never creates tags, implying when to use it. It advises using full paths for same-name tags, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance. Given sibling tools are for different entities, context is sufficient.

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

• create_taskA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations set idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description elaborates on idempotency key reuse, potential write_disabled error, and revalidation. No contradictions. Adds context about server behavior exceeding annotations.

  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 relatively long but efficient; each sentence adds value. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. Could be slightly tighter but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

  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 10 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, destination rules, unsupported features, and error behavior. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

  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 description coverage is low (10%), but the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the complex destination parameter, tagIds constraints, and idempotencyKey usage. Other params like note, flagged are not described, but the most critical ones are well covered.

  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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'OmniFocus task' with the qualifier 'after an explicit user request'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all read-only or search operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use (explicit user request), what destinations are valid (inbox, project ID, action group ID), what is not accepted (names, paths), prerequisites (fresh reads), and unsupported operations. Even instructs the agent to restate context before calling.

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