Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a task, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like what happens on success or failure, and it doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Task content', 'Due date in ISO format'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

  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 ('Create a new task') and the target resource ('in AI Note'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_task' and 'update_task' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_tasks' or 'list_categories', keeping it from 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 alternatives like 'update_task' for modifications or 'list_tasks' for viewing. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

• list_categoriesC
  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 full burden. It states 'List all categories' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or requires authentication. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 with a single sentence 'List all categories', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to the tool's purpose.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral context, or how it fits with siblings, leaving gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for 0 parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'List all categories' clearly states the action (list) and resource (categories), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_tasks'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'all' means in this context.

  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 like 'list_tasks' or other siblings. The description implies usage for retrieving categories but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• list_tasksC
  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 full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'AI Note' entails. It misses key details for a read 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on return format, error handling, or the 'AI Note' system, leaving gaps for a tool with three parameters and behavioral unknowns.

  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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 ('List') and resource ('tasks from AI Note'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_categories' or specify what 'AI Note' refers to, 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_categories' or 'search' parameters. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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

• update_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if the task doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

  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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and gets straight to the point.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of an update operation and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

  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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_task' beyond the 'existing' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score of 5.

  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 'create_task' or 'delete_task'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling set.

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

• delete_taskB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by specifying 'soft delete' (implying reversible/non-destructive deletion), but doesn't cover permissions needed, confirmation prompts, side effects, or what happens to associated data. The disclosure is partial but meaningful.

  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 at just 4 words, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place by adding critical information ('soft delete'). No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

  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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as a deletion operation and specifies it's 'soft', but lacks details on permissions, confirmation, return values, or error conditions that would be helpful for safe 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' well-documented as 'Task ID to delete'. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, baseline 4 is appropriate as minimal additional value is needed.

  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 ('Delete') and resource ('a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'update_task' regarding deletion vs modification, nor does it mention what distinguishes it from potential hard-delete alternatives.

  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 like 'update_task' for status changes or potential archive operations. The description mentions 'soft delete' but doesn't explain when this is appropriate versus other deletion methods or what the implications are.

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