Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• alabasta_start_task_workB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states the core state transition, omitting details like what happens if the task is already in progress, whether the call is idempotent, or any permission requirements. The description is too thin for a mutation 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the essential action and timing in a compact form, making it easy to parse and remember.

  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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to document the parameter, potential edge cases, or behavioral constraints. While the tool is conceptually simple, the absence of parameter semantics and error handling makes it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly in all situations.

  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 schema has a single parameter (taskId) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since the schema provides no description and the description doesn't compensate, the agent is left uninformed about how to specify which task to mark in progress, especially given that the parameter is not marked as required.

  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 ('Mark a task in progress') with a specific resource (a task) and a defined state change. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'mark_ready_for_review' or 'submit_task_resolution' by focusing on the pre-editing status transition.

  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 phrase 'before you begin editing' provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the temporal cue is sufficient for a simple state-change tool, making it easy to select among siblings.

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

• alabasta_submit_task_resolutionA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 reveals important traits: moves to human review, never marks done, never edits description, requires structured resolution, and distinguishes verified/unverified claims. However, it does not cover other aspects like permissions, failure modes, or reversibility.

  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 concise and front-loaded, using three focused sentences to convey purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

  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 complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and zero annotation coverage, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It explains purpose and some behavior but does not describe required inputs, return values, or how to structure the resolution, leaving the agent under-informed.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameter names or details. It only vaguely refers to 'STRUCTURED resolution' and 'verified vs unverified claims', which does not help the agent understand the required outcome and summary fields or the variety of optional parameters. This is a severe gap.

  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: submitting a structured resolution after completing work. It explicitly distinguishes itself from related actions by noting it never marks the task done or edits the task description, making it identifiable among siblings like alabasta_mark_ready_for_review.

  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 indicates use after completing work and clarifies that it does not mark the task done, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

• alabasta_mark_ready_for_reviewA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the status change and provides no information about prerequisites, permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return value. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word adds value, especially the distinction from full resolution submission.

  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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and provides some workflow context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks detail on preconditions and what the caller should expect after invocation.

  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?

  The schema provides only a parameter name and type with no description, and the description does not mention taskId at all. The parameter is inferable from its name, but the schema marks it as not required (0 required parameters), which is ambiguous and unaddressed.

  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 verb ('Move') and resource ('task') and clearly states the action: changing task status to 'review'. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'submit_task_resolution' by explicitly saying 'without submitting a full resolution'.

  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 phrase 'without submitting a full resolution' gives useful context for when this tool is appropriate versus a full resolution submission. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for when not to use it.

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

• alabasta_list_my_tasksA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only describes the action without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is insufficient for full 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?

  A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. No extraneous 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?

  The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but given no annotations or output schema, the description could mention valid status values or that it returns a list of task objects. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

  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 has a single 'status' parameter with no description and 0% coverage. The description adds that it's an optional filter, providing some semantics, but it does not indicate valid status values or format, leaving the agent to guess.

  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 'List tasks assigned to you' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task which retrieves a single task. The optional status filter adds clarity.

  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 provides clear context: use this tool to list tasks assigned to you, optionally filtered by status. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools are all actions for specific tasks.

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

• alabasta_report_blockerA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose (for human triage) but does not mention side effects, persistence, or any actions taken after recording. This is minimal but not misleading.

  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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys purpose and audience with no redundant 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?

  This is a simple tool, but since there is no output schema and minimal parameter info, the description could have stated what happens after reporting (e.g., record created, no immediate feedback). It is adequate for a basic reporting action but leaves gaps.

  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 the parameters beyond implying 'reason' is the explanation. The optional 'taskId' is omitted entirely, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate these fields.

  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 verb 'Record' and identifies the resource: 'why the task could not be completed, for a human to triage.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_task_resolution or mark_ready_for_review.

  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 implies the tool should be used when a task cannot be completed, and the reason needs to be triaged by a human. It provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives, but the intended scenario is evident.

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

• alabasta_collect_git_contextA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals best-effort behavior ('Best-effort — missing pieces are omitted') and the use of local git/gh, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the output structure, potential failure modes, or whether network access is required, leaving gaps.

  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 with no redundant words. Each sentence adds functional value: the first states what it gathers, the second provides usage context and reliability caveat.

  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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it gathers, when to call it, and its best-effort behavior. It lacks a precise output contract, but the enumerated content and merge instruction provide adequate context for an agent.

  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% and already fully explains baseRef with its default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 verb ('Gather') and clearly enumerates the resource ('real diff stat, commits, PR state, and CI checks') and source ('local repo'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly linking to alabasta_submit_task_resolution as a pre-submission step.

  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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call before submitting and merge the result into alabasta_submit_task_resolution.' This establishes workflow context without formally excluding alternatives, but no competing tool exists for this purpose.

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

• alabasta_get_taskA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and discloses the fields returned, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention edge cases like not-found behavior or output format, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every part adds value without redundancy.

  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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the key fields returned and both input methods. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools make this sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 provides no descriptions for the two parameters, but the description compensates by instructing to pass 'taskId or identifier' and gives an example identifier (TOM-24). This clarifies that the parameters are alternative identifiers, adding meaningful semantics beyond 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 a specific action ('Read an Alabasta task') and the resource, listing key fields (title, description, status, priority). It distinguishes itself from siblings like alabasta_list_my_tasks by focusing on reading a single task rather than listing tasks.

  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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before editing' and instructs to pass taskId or identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'before editing' context and sibling tool names make the intended usage clear.

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