Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchIssuesC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, with no wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

  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 complexity (search tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or how search results are structured, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

  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 input schema fully documents parameters (projectId, keyword, status). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or search semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Backlogの課題を検索します' (Searches Backlog issues) states the basic action and resource (issues in Backlog), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like getIssue or updateIssue. It specifies the verb 'search' and target 'issues', but lacks detail on what 'search' entails versus 'get'.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getIssue (which might retrieve a single issue) or updateIssue. The description implies searching multiple issues but doesn't clarify contexts like filtering needs or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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

• updateIssueC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool updates an issue, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence ('Backlog課題を更新します') that is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'issueId' as the issue ID, 'status' as new status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples beyond the schema's '例: PROJECT-1'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Backlog課題を更新します' (Updates a Backlog issue) clearly states the verb ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('Backlog課題' - Backlog issue), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'getIssue' or 'searchIssues' beyond the update action, making it somewhat vague in differentiation.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getIssue' or 'searchIssues'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing issue ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• getIssueC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a specific issue but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid issue IDs), or the format of the return data. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., issue details, status, comments) or how to interpret the output. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the result format and usability.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'issueId' parameter clearly documented as the issue ID (e.g., 'PROJECT-1'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining ID formats or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('特定のBacklog課題' - specific Backlog issue), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchIssues' (which likely searches multiple issues) or 'getProjects' (which retrieves projects rather than issues), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchIssues' or 'updateIssue'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid issue ID, or contextual factors like whether this is for single-issue retrieval versus bulk operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• getProjectsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this retrieves project lists but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the data returns. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like (project objects, IDs, names, metadata), whether there are limitations on the listing, or how results are structured. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the response format.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since none exist. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

  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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('プロジェクト一覧' - project list) in Japanese. It specifies this tool retrieves project lists from Backlog, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle issues. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling project tools (though none are listed).

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this is for listing all projects, filtered projects, or specific use cases. With sibling tools focused on issues (getIssue, searchIssues, updateIssue), there's no comparison or context about when project listing is appropriate versus issue operations.

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