Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• message_human_operatorA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate it's a write operation with side effects. Description adds that reply_to is the only way to get a response, clarifying the communication pattern. No contradictions.

  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 with a list of use cases in the first sentence. No redundant words; every part contributes to understanding.

  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 message-sending tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and critical parameter advice. It does not discuss return values, but that is acceptable given the tool's nature.

  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?

  All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by stressing the importance of reply_to and explaining its role, going beyond the schema's 'strongly recommended'.

  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 verb ('Send'), resource ('human operator'), and scope ('free-form message... anything not yet a ready-made task'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for unstructured requests.

  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 context on when to use (for questions, scoping, custom projects) and implies not for ready-made tasks. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparison with siblings.

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

• submit_human_taskA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations, adds key behavioral details: 'the human reviews every task before accepting it (this is not instant execution)' and 'Free during the pilot', which help set accurate expectations.

  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?

  Four succinct sentences with no wasted words; each sentence adds essential info: purpose, behavior, cost, and key parameter advice.

  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?

  Covers main aspects: purpose, return value (task_id), review process, cost, and highlights important parameter. Lacks output schema but description partially compensates.

  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 baseline is 3. Description adds minor extra context about contact_email being crucial, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

  Clearly states 'Submit a task for the human operator to perform in the real world' and 'Returns a task_id immediately', distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_task_status and get_human_services.

  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?

  Implies usage for submitting tasks to humans, and notes that human reviews every task before acceptance, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or when to prefer siblings.

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

• get_human_servicesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds useful context about manifest contents and extensibility ('catalog is examples, not limits'), aligning with openWorldHint without contradiction.

  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; first sentence front-loads essential purpose and contents. No redundant 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 tool with appropriate annotations, the description fully explains its role and output. No missing context.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to provide parameter details.

  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 states exactly what the tool fetches (Human For AI manifest) and lists specific contents (services, operator profile, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from siblings which are task operations.

  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 'Call this first to decide whether and how to hire the human.' Also notes unlisted needs are welcome. Provides clear guidance on when to use.

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

• check_task_statusA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already note readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the status progression, history, and operator notes, providing useful behavioral details beyond 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. Information is efficiently presented.

  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 simple 1-parameter, no-output-schema tool with good annotations, the description fully covers return values (status, history, notes) and usage context, leaving no gaps.

  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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description explains the task_id format with an example, adding meaningful context 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 the tool's purpose: to look up a submitted task by its task_id. It lists the status flow, making the action specific and distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_human_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?

  Implies usage after task submission, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. However, sibling tool names provide context, and the description's clarity compensates.

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