Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_taskA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'update' but does not disclose whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, any destructive behavior, permissions needed, or return value. Lacks crucial details for a mutation tool.

  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?

  Single, front-loaded sentence that directly states purpose, lists modifiable fields, and explains identification. No superfluous 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?

  Adequate for locating the tool, but lacks information on return value, side effects, and partial update behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, additional details would enhance completeness.

  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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying that task identification can use either task_id or content substring match, which is not fully explicit in the schema descriptions.

  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?

  Description clearly states it updates an existing Todoist task and lists specific fields (text, due date, priority, description). Identifies two methods to locate the task (by task_id or content substring), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_task and complete_task.

  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?

  Provides clear context that the tool modifies existing tasks and explains identification options, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., avoid for completing tasks).

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

• add_taskA
  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 full burden. It discloses natural-language parsing and priority range, which is good, but does not cover error cases, side effects, or rate limits. Lacks depth for a mutation tool.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. Efficient and to the point.

  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 tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key features (natural language, priority). Lacks guidance on required permissions or error handling, but is otherwise sufficient.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value. It reiterates natural-language due dates and priority meaning, but these are already in the schema descriptions. Scores baseline 3.

  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 'Add a task to Todoist' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'Use when the user wants to create a to-do, reminder, or task,' implying this is for creation versus completion, listing, or updating.

  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 tells when to use the tool ('when the user wants to create a to-do, reminder, or task'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the explicit 'create' guidance are sufficient for a 4.

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

• list_tasksA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states it lists active tasks but does not disclose behavior like sorting, pagination, or safety (read-only). Missing details on rate limits or authentication needs.

  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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and immediate context. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes meaning.

  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 no output schema, the description could mention return format or limitations. However, it sufficiently covers the tool's function and parameters for a simple list operation.

  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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by giving example filter values like 'today', 'overdue', '@work', clarifying usage beyond 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 it lists active Todoist tasks, specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like add_task or complete_task by focusing on listing active items.

  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 says when to use the tool: when the user asks about their list, due items, or to review tasks. It lacks exclusions or alternatives, but provides clear context.

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

• complete_taskA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the two identification methods (task_id or match substring) with an example, which is sufficient for a simple completion action.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it doesn't address edge cases like multiple matches or missing tasks, which would be helpful.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds extra value by explaining the either/or usage and giving a concrete example ('milk' to complete 'Buy milk').

  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 'Mark a Todoist task complete' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_task and update_task by focusing on completion.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Use when the user says they finished or did something.' This provides clear context, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives.

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

• list_projectsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but description accurately conveys read-only behavior (listing names and ids). No contradictions or missing behavioral info for a zero-parameter tool.

  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: one 12-word sentence. Front-loaded with action and purpose, no wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  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 no output schema, the description fully explains what it does and when to use it. No gaps.

  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?

  Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. Baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameter details needed.

  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?

  Description clearly states the verb 'List', resource 'Todoist projects', and what is returned ('names and ids'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_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?

  Explicitly says to use 'before filing or filtering tasks', providing clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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