Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• bmad-taskB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes key features like 'interactive clarification process,' 'dynamic engine selection,' and 'quality gates,' which give some insight into behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, state persistence, or performance characteristics. The return values are listed but not explained in depth.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is structured with a brief overview, bullet-pointed features, and a return values section, but it's somewhat verbose. Sentences like 'Master orchestrator with embedded role prompts' could be more direct. The information is front-loaded with key points, but some redundancy exists (e.g., listing stages twice). It could be more streamlined.

  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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a good overview but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and returns, but misses details on error cases, state management, or integration specifics. Without output schema, more explanation of return values would help. It's adequate but has clear gaps for such a complex 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It implies parameters through features like 'stage' and 'action,' but doesn't elaborate on their usage or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 tool is a 'workflow orchestrator' that 'manages complete development workflow' with specific stages listed (PO → Architect → SM → Dev → Review → QA). It provides a specific verb ('orchestrator') and resource ('development workflow'), though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't applicable. The purpose is well-defined but could be more concise about the core action.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'It does NOT call LLMs directly - that's Claude Code's responsibility,' which hints at a boundary but doesn't specify when this tool should be invoked versus other workflow tools. No prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria are stated.

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