Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• commit_stageA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the workflow pattern of testing, size-checking, staging, and committing, as well as the scoping to a single declared stage. It does not contradict annotations, and it enriches the behavioral context beyond just 'destructive'. However, it does not disclose failure modes or side effects such as what happens if tests fail.

  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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

  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?

  With six parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description is quite minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a declared plan), what happens if size checks fail, or the effect of dryRun. This leaves important gaps for an agent aiming to invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description makes no reference to the six input parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'files', 'dryRun', 'maxFiles', or 'maxLines' mean. The only implicit mention is 'stage', but it is not tied to the parameter definition.

  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 uses a specific compound verb ('Test, size-check, stage, and commit') and identifies the resource as 'the next declared plan stage' with a scoping constraint ('only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_task, task_status, and finish_task, making its purpose clear.

  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 a plan stage is ready to commit) but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools. The phrase 'only the next declared plan stage' provides some contextual constraint but lacks explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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

• plan_taskA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations are all false, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the clean-worktree precondition but does not explain side effects (e.g., where the plan is stored), validation behavior, or return output. This is partial 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and object, includes key constraints (ordered, 2-4 stages, clean worktree), and contains no filler.

  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?

  With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and only a terse description, the agent lacks essential context about how to construct stages, what the plan is used for, or how it relates to sibling tools. The workflow context is not explained, leaving significant gaps for a tool with nested parameters.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the top-level 'description' parameter means or what the stage object fields (e.g., 'files') represent. The term 'commit plan' hints at context, but the description leaves too much to inference for a nested structure.

  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 states a specific action ('Create'), a concrete resource ('ordered 2-4 stage commit plan'), and a condition ('from a clean Git worktree'). This clearly differentiates plan_task from siblings like commit_stage and task_status by focusing on the planning phase.

  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 a clear prerequisite ('clean Git worktree') and scope ('2-4 stage'), which imply usage during initial planning. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, stopping short of full usage guidance.

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

• finish_taskA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral precondition that the plan must be complete and clean, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not describe side effects of finishing, but given annotations, this is sufficient.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action 'Mark' and immediately specifies the target and qualifiers. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

  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 has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The description provides the purpose and a precondition, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. It could mention the absence of return values, but that is not required without an output schema.

  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 takes zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description contains no parameter information because none is needed. This 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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and identifies the resource 'task plan' and the resulting state 'finished'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like plan_task and task_status by indicating the finalization action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

  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 states the precondition 'complete, clean task plan,' which implies when the tool should be used and implicitly warns against using it on incomplete or unclean plans. It does not mention alternative tools, but the condition provides clear usage context. There are no explicit exclusions beyond the condition.

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

• task_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what is read (active plan, completed commits, next stage), which enriches the behavioral picture without contradicting 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?

  A single, concise sentence conveys the tool's purpose and contents without any filler or repetition. It front-loads the key information effectively.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with supportive annotations, the description adequately explains the tool. It could mention the return format, but given the simplicity and absence of parameters, the current description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is no ambiguity to resolve.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'task status', then details the content ('active plan, completed commits, and next stage'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_task and commit_stage, which imply mutation.

  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 this tool is for checking status without modifying anything, and sibling names suggest it as an alternative to planning/committing. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the context to inference.

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