Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• assign_taskC
  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 the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to previous assignments. The behavioral information is insufficient.

  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 sentence, which is concise and contains the essential verb-resource pairing. It could be slightly expanded to add context without losing conciseness.

  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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details about the effect of assignment (e.g., overwriting) and any constraints. It does not leverage the opportunity to provide complete context.

  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 100%, with each parameter described as UUID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action: assigns a task to a specific user. It includes the action name in parentheses for clarity. While it distinguishes from sibling tools (create, update, move), it does not explicitly contrast them, but the purpose is unambiguous.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the task must exist or if the user must be valid, nor does it indicate if this assignment replaces prior assignments.

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

• move_taskB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It adds that the current column is detected automatically, which is useful, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or potential errors. The description is minimal for a mutation 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 consists of two short sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. No wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded.

  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 simple move operation with 3 parameters, the description covers the main functionality but lacks information about return values, error handling, or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context by explaining the absence of a 'from_column' parameter due to automatic detection, which adds value. Scores baseline 3.

  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 moves a task to another column and mentions the action name 'moveTask'. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_task_and_update', so a slight deduction.

  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 like 'move_task_and_update' or 'assign_task'. It neither states prerequisites nor exclusions.

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

• create_taskB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool creates a task via webhook, but does not reveal any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens after creation. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

  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: two short sentences that convey the core functionality and a key feature. No unnecessary words or repetition. It 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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, permission requirements, or how the webhook integration works. A create operation with many parameters demands more context.

  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 67%, which is moderate. The description highlights 'metadata' for custom fields but does not elaborate on other parameters like format or constraints. The schema itself provides basic descriptions for most parameters, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

  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 action ('Cria uma nova task'), resource ('task'), and context ('em um projeto via webhook'). It also mentions a specific feature (custom fields via metadata). The sibling tools (update, move) are distinct, so this tool's purpose is unambiguous.

  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 does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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

• move_task_and_updateB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without detailing transactional atomicity, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. The 'webhook' in the title is not explained.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No redundant or extra information.

  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 (14 params, composite action, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits return value, error conditions, constraints, and important context like webhook behavior or column existence requirements.

  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 high (79%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on any parameter purpose or format.

  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 'Move' and 'atualiza' (update) on the resource 'task', specifying moving to another column and updating fields in one operation. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like move_task and update_task.

  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 composite tool versus its siblings (move_task, update_task, etc.). It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

• update_taskA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not move the task (implying no positional change). However, it omits details on authentication needs, side effects (e.g., audit logs), idempotency, error handling, or response 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?

  Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place: action name, critical constraint ('sem movê-la'), required element ('pelo menos um campo'), and a practical use case. No filler or redundancy.

  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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description could be more comprehensive. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions (e.g., what happens if updates object is empty), or rate limits. It compensates partially with the SDD use case but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

  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% (both parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one sub-field in 'updates' is mandatory (not enforced by schema) and by providing a concrete example for the 'description' field (SDD attachment). This helps the agent understand parameter constraints beyond schema.

  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 it updates existing tasks without moving them, distinguishing it from sibling move tools. It also specifies the action name 'updateTask' and a common use case (attaching generated SDD). However, it does not explicitly contrast with assign_task or create_task.

  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 mentions that at least one field in 'updates' is required and gives a typical use case (attaching SDD). But it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like move_task_and_update or assign_task, and does not mention prerequisites or context.

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