Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• start-sprintA
  3.7/5.0
  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 does add value by revealing the pre-check for active sprints, but it lacks details on potential failure modes, side effects beyond manifest/directory creation, or whether it is idempotent. The description is informative but not comprehensive.

  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 two sentences and highly efficient. It front-loads the primary action and adds a single essential behavioral note, with zero wasted words.

  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 creation tool with three fully described parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and a key guardrail. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance (when to choose this tool over check-sprint-status) and does not mention expected outcomes or error cases, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

  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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (title, goal, owner), so the description need not add further detail. The description does not go beyond the schema in explaining parameter meaning or relationships.

  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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Initialize a new sprint with manifest and directory structure.' This distinctly separates it from the sibling tool 'check-sprint-status,' which is about checking rather than creating.

  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 mentions a precondition ('Checks for active sprints first') implying it should be used when no active sprint exists, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool or state when to use one over the other. This is a clear but unspoken usage context.

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

• check-sprint-statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return behavior (active sprint info or no active sprints), and the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'verify' and 'check', but it does not explicitly state that no sprint is started or modified.

  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 short sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

  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 tool's simplicity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact shape of 'active sprint info' and that it does not mutate state, but the current description is sufficient.

  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, so the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; baseline is 4 for a no-parameter tool.

  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 verifies current sprint state and checks for active sprints. Distinguishes itself from the sibling 'start-sprint' by focusing on inspection rather than creation.

  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?

  Implies usage as a status-checking tool before or alongside starting sprints, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus 'start-sprint'. No direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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