Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lock_createA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: lock file creation, tasks created unchecked, and the handling of agent_id/parent_agent_id being recorded as null if unknown. This goes beyond the annotation hints, though it does not cover potential error cases or return values.

  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 fairly detailed but each sentence provides value. The explanation about MCP transport is slightly verbose but justified. It is well-structured moving from purpose to usage to parameter caveats.

  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 complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior, usage sequence, and the nuanced handling of optional IDs. It doesn't describe duplicate lock handling, but sibling lock_check_conflict exists. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so all params are defined. The description adds extra meaning, particularly for agent_id and parent_agent_id, explaining they should only be passed if already known and will never be fabricated. Tasks are described as 'plain unchecked checklist,' enriching 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 function: 'Claims a piece of work by writing a new active lock file.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like lock_query, lock_check_conflict, lock_update, and lock_finish. It also clarifies that tasks are created unchecked.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this after you have decided to proceed (optionally having checked lock_query / lock_check_conflict first).' It also provides sequential guidance with lock_update and mentions alternatives for checking conflicts.

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

• lock_check_conflictA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating the tool is purely informational, has no side effects, never blocks or vetoes, and cannot prevent lock_create. It also discloses the static-prefix glob heuristic's intentional bias toward false positives and mentions a documented case it does not catch. This provides rich behavioral context not present in annotations.

  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 moderately long but every sentence conveys meaningful information: purpose, non-blocking nature, heuristic behavior, and return shape. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by necessary elaboration. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-organized without redundancy.

  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?

  The description is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity. It covers side effects (none), blocking behavior (none), heuristic logic (with a pointer to README), return shape (same as lock_query, empty array if none), and provides actionable steps for the agent (proceed, coordinate, narrow scope). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes 'scope' as glob patterns for files/paths. The description reinforces this by referring to 'glob patterns you pass in' and adds context about how overlap is determined (static-prefix heuristic, bias toward false positives), which goes beyond the schema's simple definition and gives the parameter practical semantics.

  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: 'Checks whether any currently ACTIVE lock claims file(s)/path(s) that overlap the glob patterns you pass in.' It uses a specific verb ('Checks') and a specific resource (active locks vs. glob patterns), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is purely informational and cannot block lock_create.

  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 explains when to use the tool ('to give you information so you... can decide for yourself whether to proceed, coordinate with the other lock's owner, or pick a narrower scope') and what it does not do ('never blocks, refuses, or vetoes anything'). It references lock_query and lock_create as context but does not explicitly compare against all sibling tools for other use cases, making it clear but not exhaustive.

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

• lock_finishA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Despite minimal annotations (all hints false), the description discloses important behaviors: it appends to Notes, moves the file, and errors on non-existent or already-done locks rather than silently no-op-ing. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and failure modes.

  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-organized sentence that front-loads the primary action, then adds subordinate details (summary, archive, query visibility, error behavior). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

  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?

  Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects (archiving, visibility change), and error conditions. No critical behavioral information is missing.

  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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that lock_id must refer to an active lock, and that summary is appended to the Notes section before archival. These details are not in the raw parameter 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?

  The description clearly states the action: 'Marks an active lock as done', appends a summary, and moves the file to an archive. It distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on completion/archiving rather than querying, creating, updating, or conflict-checking.

  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 when to use: when a lock is done and should be archived. It also clarifies that the lock disappears from lock_query's default view, hinting that lock_query can be used to check status before finishing. It does not explicitly list alternatives but provides sufficient context to differentiate.

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

• lock_queryA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds that locks are shared across worktrees, that done locks are excluded by default, and the exact percentComplete calculation (ratio of checked to total tasks, zero tasks = 100). No contradiction with 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?

  The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then provides an IMPORTANT clarification, then the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  The description explains the return fields and the percentComplete computation, which is important because no output schema exists. It also covers the default filtering behavior and worktree sharing. For a simple read-only query tool, this is complete.

  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 schema covers all four parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds user-facing behavior context for the `status` parameter (default active, done/all to include finished locks) and clarifies the listing scope, earning a 4.

  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 agent-locks work-claim locks for the current git repository' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lock_check_conflict and lock_create by focusing on listing locks, and adds useful context about shared worktrees.

  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 explains the default behavior ('when status is omitted, this ONLY returns active locks') and explicitly instructs how to include finished locks ('Pass status: "done" or status: "all"'). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the sibling set makes it clear this is for querying rather than conflict-checking.

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

• lock_updateA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: exact matching requirement, error behavior listing actual task texts, and that it works regardless of current directory. Annotations only state readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints; the description enriches these with practical details.

  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 compact yet information-dense. It opens with the core action, then provides timing guidance, exact-match rules, and error behavior in logical order. Every sentence contributes unique value, and the structure is neatly front-loaded.

  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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to call, the matching rule, error handling, and compatibility with lock states. The parameter semantics are well covered by the schema, and the description fills in the missing behavioral details, making it complete for an agent's decision-making.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the task_text parameter by emphasizing 'EXACTLY' and explaining the error response on mismatch, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This pushes the score above baseline.

  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 begins with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Flips one task on an existing lock to done or not-done, and optionally appends a note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_create (creates), lock_query (reads), and lock_finish (likely finishes the entire lock).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this AS SOON as a task actually completes — not batched at the end of your work' which is a clear when-to-use instruction. Also explains the consequence of mismatch (returns error) and the tool's applicability to active/done locks, giving the agent a strong sense of when to invoke it.

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