Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_task_messagesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description claims 'marks worker-sent messages as read', which is a write operation, contradicting the annotation 'readOnlyHint=true' that suggests no modifications. This is a direct contradiction.

  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: first defines purpose and ordering, second adds behavioral detail. No wasted words, front-loaded.

  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?

  While the description mentions the read-marking side effect, it contradicts annotations, causing confusion. It lacks details about response format, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

  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 a well-described parameter. The description does not add new information beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool lists all messages on a task, ordered oldest first, and specifies the types of messages included (worker questions, replies, system notices). It is distinct from sibling tools like send_task_message or cancel_task.

  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 indicates the tool is for reading messages on a task. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the use case is clear given the sibling context.

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

• post_taskB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds context about fair trade pay minimums but does not expand on other behavioral aspects like charging, authorization, or side effects.

  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 padding. The key information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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?

  No output schema exists, but the description does not explain return values or error handling. For a creation tool, knowing what is returned (e.g., task ID) is crucial. The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity.

  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 each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is sufficient.

  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 (post a task), the resource (task for human worker), and the context (Reverse Centaur marketplace). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_task or check_task by specifying creation.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions pay minimums but does not clarify when to choose post_task over other task management tools.

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

• send_task_messageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about message scope and visibility to workers, which is helpful beyond annotations.

  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?

  Three concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and purpose.

  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?

  The tool is simple with no output schema, but the description adequately explains behavior and scope. Missing return value info is minor given the 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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

  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 ('Send a message to the human worker') and the resource ('one of your tasks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_task_messages (which lists instead of sends) and cancel_task (which cancels).

  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?

  It provides explicit use cases: 'answer a clarifying question, add context, or follow up.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, so not a perfect score.

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

• check_taskA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnly=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports. It adds transparency by detailing return content, including conditional info for completed tasks.

  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?

  Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, return info, usage guidance. No redundant or vague language.

  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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it.

  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 single parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces that task_id comes from post_task but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema.

  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 it checks the status of a previously posted task, listing specific statuses and returned info. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_task or post_task by focusing on status retrieval.

  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 to poll after posting a task, providing clear usage timing. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context implies it requires a valid task_id from post_task.

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

• cancel_taskA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: detailed refund/fee logic based on assignment status, and explicitly states the action is irreversible. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavioral traits.

  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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage condition, behavioral detail, and irreversibility. No redundant or irrelevant content.

  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?

  The description covers key return information (refund amount and fees) and irreversibility, but does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid task_id or already cancelled). Given the tool's moderate complexity, it is largely adequate.

  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 description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

  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 begins with 'Cancel a previously posted task,' which directly states the action (cancel) and resource (task). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like post_task or check_task by focusing solely on cancellation.

  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 states when to use the tool ('when the task is no longer needed or was posted in error') and explains behavior under different conditions (refund vs fee). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

• list_capabilitiesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists the specific data returned (categories, pay minimums, availability, status) and enumerates the nine categories. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns perfectly.

  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?

  Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage, and output details. No redundant or unnecessary information.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. Listing all nine categories adds completeness.

  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 zero parameters, and per guidelines baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, compensating for the lack of output schema.

  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 lists available task categories, fair trade pay minimums, worker availability, and platform status. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'capabilities', distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_task or cancel_task.

  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 recommends using this tool 'before posting a task', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, leaving room for minor improvement.

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