Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• todoist_update_taskB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions 'search by name' but fails to explain ambiguity handling (e.g., multiple matches), partial vs full update, side effects, or authorization needs. Lacks critical 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words, though slightly more structure could improve readability. Good conciseness overall.

  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, so description should cover return values. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated task object, success flag). Missing details on search behavior and partial update semantics make it incomplete for a mutation tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—only clarifying 'search by name' which is already implied by the task_name parameter description. No extra context for optional parameters.

  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 'Update', the resource 'existing task', and the method 'by searching for it by name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, complete, and get tasks.

  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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of using todoist_complete_task for completion or delete for removal, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names alone.

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

• todoist_create_taskB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lacks disclosure of side effects, return values, or error conditions. Only states basic creation with optional fields.

  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, 15 words, no redundancy. Core action and resource are front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the structure is efficient.

  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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not mention what the tool returns on success, error handling, or prerequisites for use.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by restating that fields are optional, which is already clear from the schema. No additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  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 specifies the action 'Create' and the resource 'task in Todoist', and lists optional fields. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like update, delete, complete, and get by focusing on 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context provided, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name and sibling list.

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

• todoist_complete_taskB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it searches by name and marks complete, but omits important details: what happens if no task is found, if multiple tasks match, whether the action is reversible, or any authentication/permission requirements. The mutation and side effects are under-described.

  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 that concisely conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Mark'. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the searching and completion steps.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate for understanding the core functionality. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'task_name'. The description adds 'search for and complete' which is already implied by the schema description. No additional semantic meaning beyond the 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 the action: 'Mark a task as complete', specifying the resource (task) and the operation (complete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, update by focusing on completion, but the phrase 'searching for it by name' adds a minor nuance that could imply searching behavior beyond completion.

  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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to complete a task by name) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is preferred over updating the task's status via 'todoist_update_task'.

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

• todoist_delete_taskB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool searches by name and deletes, but fails to clarify behavior for ambiguous names (e.g., multiple matches), required authentication, side effects, or success/failure responses.

  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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more precise by specifying what happens with multiple matches or the return type.

  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 one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools, which an agent would need for robust invocation.

  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?

  Although the schema already describes the 'task_name' parameter, the description adds value by indicating that the tool performs a search by name before deletion, which is not explicit in the schema. This helps the agent understand the lookup behavior.

  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 ('delete'), the resource ('task from Todoist'), and the specific method ('by searching for it by name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like todoist_complete_task and todoist_update_task by focusing on deletion.

  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 versus alternatives (e.g., todoist_complete_task for marking done, todoist_update_task for editing). No prerequisites, edge cases, or contexts are mentioned.

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

• todoist_get_tasksA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations; description only mentions filters without disclosing read-only nature, pagination, or response structure.

  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, concise sentence with no extraneous information.

  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?

  While schema covers parameters, missing output schema and no mention of pagination or error handling leaves gaps for a retrieval tool.

  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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions; the tool description adds negligible value over 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 the tool retrieves a list of tasks with filters, distinct from CRUD siblings.

  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?

  Implied retrieval usage but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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