Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• checkvist_update_taskC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 only says 'Update an existing task' with no information about side effects, whether omitted fields are cleared, whether it can move tasks, or how it interacts with other task properties. This is essentially no disclosure beyond the tool name.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is a single five-word clause, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and no sibling differentiation. The brevity sacrifices utility, making it more under-specification than appropriate conciseness.

  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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too thin. It does not explain the semantics of updating a task, such as whether fields are replaced or merged, the effect of required IDs, or common use cases. The schema documents parameters, but the overall operation remains unclear.

  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 already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task'), but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name and does not distinguish this update tool from siblings like create_task, close_task, or set_repeating_task. The word 'existing' adds minimal scope, but no details about what can be updated.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_task, close_task, or move_task. There is no mention of required parameters like checklist_id and task_id, nor any note about partial versus full updates.

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

• checkvist_update_checklistC
  2.3/5.0
  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. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full, whether authentication is required, what happens to omitted fields, or the nature of the response. This is insufficient transparency for an update operation.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specifying. It doesn't add value beyond the tool name, making it short but not appropriately informative. It's concise in length but not in substance.

  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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for reliable tool selection and invocation. It doesn't mention side effects, return values, or partial-update behavior. Sibling tools cover a broad domain, and this description is notably incomplete for an update operation.

  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%—all three parameters (name, public, checklist_id) have descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Update an existing checklist' essentially restates the tool name 'checkvist_update_checklist'. It provides no additional specificity about what fields can be updated (e.g., name, public) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling update tools beyond the resource type, which is already evident from the name.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_checklist, delete_checklist, or other update tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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.

• checkvist_close_taskC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention side effects, requirements, reversibility, or authentication. The action 'close' implies a state change but no details are given.

  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 concise phrase with no unnecessary words. However, it's somewhat under-specified, lacking any additional context that could fit in a longer sentence.

  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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides only the minimal purpose. It doesn't explain what happens on completion or any prerequisites, but the schema covers the parameters fully.

  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%, both task_id and checklist_id are described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Close/complete' with resource 'task', clearly indicating the action. It differentiates from siblings like checkvist_reopen_task and checkvist_create_task by the action verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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 checkvist_reopen_task or checkvist_delete_task. The description only states the action without context or exclusions.

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

• checkvist_get_checklistC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety traits. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the response includes only the checklist object or also its tasks/notes. With no output schema, this leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

  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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it could have included additional context without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and clearly states the target resource.

  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 minimally viable description for a one-parameter read-only tool with solid annotations. However, without an output schema, the description fails to clarify what 'information' contains, especially given sibling tools like get_tasks and get_checklist_stats. This ambiguity is a real gap in contextual completeness.

  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% with checklist_id fully described. The description's 'by ID' merely repeats the schema, adding no extra format, type, or usage details. Since the schema handles all parameter documentation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 tool retrieves information about a specific checklist by ID, using 'Get' as the verb and 'checklist' as the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_checklists (all checklists) and get_checklist_stats (stats), though 'information' is vague and doesn't specify what fields are returned.

  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 list_checklists to find an ID or get_tasks to retrieve tasks within a checklist. There are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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

• checkvist_set_repeating_taskC
  2.9/5.0
  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 indicates a mutation ('configure') but does not state whether existing repeat settings are overwritten, whether the task must exist, what happens on error, or any return value or side effects.

  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 of 7 words with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action, every word earning its place, making it highly concise.

  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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about return values, usage context, and behavior, which are essential for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially with 6 parameters to handle.

  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?

  All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% schema description coverage), so the schema already conveys their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Configure' with the object 'a task' and the outcome 'repeat on a schedule', clearly identifying the tool's primary function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, none of which mention recurring schedules, though 'Configure' is somewhat generic.

  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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions for selection, and it does not reference any sibling tools or exclusions.

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

• checkvist_update_noteC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not explain whether it replaces the entire note, if it's idempotent, or what the response looks like.

  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 concise sentence, making it easy to read and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the apparent simplicity of the operation, though slightly under-specified.

  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?

  The description is minimal and does not explain relationships between the parameters (checklist_id, task_id, note_id) or when this operation is appropriate. The schema covers parameter semantics but the overall context is lacking.

  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 each parameter clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 'Update' and the resource 'existing note/comment', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_note or delete_note beyond the verb, so it lacks explicit distinction.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the note needing to exist or how it differs from updating a task or checklist.

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

• checkvist_create_checklistB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new checklist' without mentioning permissions, side effects, idempotency, or response behavior, which is insufficient 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action. While it is very brief, it is not padded or redundant, so it earns a high score for conciseness, though it lacks additional context that might be expected.

  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 one-line description is inadequate for understanding behavior, return values, or prerequisites. It provides no context for when to use the tool or what happens after creation, making it incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters.

  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 already describes 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (name, tags, public). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Create a new checklist' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like checkvist_update_checklist and checkvist_delete_checklist by indicating the create operation.

  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 such as checkvist_create_task or checkvist_update_checklist. It also omits any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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

• checkvist_create_taskB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Create', implying a mutation without detailing return values, required permissions, or side effects. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, which is appropriate for a straightforward CRUD tool.

  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?

  Despite the rich schema, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosure. With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully contextualize the tool's behavior.

  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 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in 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 states the specific action ('Create'), the resource ('task'), and the scope ('in a checklist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_checklist and create_note. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

  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 update_task or create_note. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints beyond the basic action.

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

• checkvist_delete_noteB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With destructiveHint=true already declared in annotations, the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or authorization requirements beyond what the annotation already implies.

  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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. No wasted 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 description provides a minimally viable definition for a simple delete operation with full schema coverage. However, it lacks details about return behavior or irreversibility, which would be helpful for a destructive tool.

  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?

  All three parameters (checklist_id, task_id, note_id) have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description itself adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 deletes a note/comment from a task, specifying the verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_note, update_note, and get_notes by focusing on deletion.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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

• checkvist_create_noteB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, idempotency, return values, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

  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 (3 required parameters) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., return value, confirmation) or any side effects, leaving the agent without essential contextual information.

  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?

  All three parameters are fully described in the schema (comment, task_id, checklist_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Create a note/comment on a task' uses a specific verb (create) and identifies the resource (note/comment on a task). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_note, delete_note, and get_notes, which represent distinct operations.

  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 implies usage for creating a new note/comment on a task, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_note or delete_note. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context merely implied.

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

• checkvist_delete_checklistA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotation already sets destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'marks for deletion', which hints at a soft-delete behavior. However, it does not explain the implications, reversibility, or any cascading effects on associated tasks or notes, so the added value is limited.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 fully documented parameter and a destructive annotation, but the description does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletion of tasks or whether the operation can be undone. It is adequate for a basic delete but lacks important destructive-context details.

  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 already fully describes the only parameter (checklist_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a checklist'), with a parenthetical 'marks for deletion' adding nuance about the deletion behavior. It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools for notes and tasks.

  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. Sibling tools operate on different resources, so it is implied, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• checkvist_import_tasksA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that tasks are imported in a particular format, but omits side effects, failure behavior, atomicity, permission requirements, or impact on existing tasks. For a mutating operation, this is minimal 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?

  A single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and format. No redundant phrasing or filler.

  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 moderately complex (4 params, full schema coverage, no output schema). The description is adequate for understanding the basic import action, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over checkvist_create_task, or consequences of import (e.g., duplicates, parent hierarchy). It does not fully cover the operational context.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds the format context ('indented text') which clarifies import_content, but does not elaborate on parent_id or parse_tasks. Since the schema already documents these parameters, the description's contribution is marginal.

  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 ('Import') with a clear object ('multiple tasks') and format context ('Checkvist format (indented text)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkvist_create_task (single task) and checkvist_create_note, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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 'at once' clearly differentiates this bulk-import tool from per-task creation siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving slight ambiguity for agents comparing it to create_task.

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

• checkvist_invalidate_taskA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the concrete effect (status=2) and clarifies it is not the same as closed, which is helpful. However, it omits details about reversibility, side effects, or permissions, leaving gaps 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 that delivers the essential purpose and a key distinction. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

  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 two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action but does not explain when invalidated status is appropriate or how it relates to other status transitions, which is relevant given siblings like update_task and close_task.

  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% with descriptions for both task_id and checklist_id. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies per the scoring rules.

  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 'mark' with a clear resource 'task' and specifies the exact state change (status=2). It also explicitly distinguishes from 'closed', which differentiates it from the sibling tool checkvist_close_task.

  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 phrase 'different from closed' hints at a key distinction from checkvist_close_task, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like checkvist_update_task or checkvist_reopen_task. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• checkvist_reopen_taskA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task must be closed), reversibility, error cases, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap 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?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema, the description is minimally viable. However, without annotations or output schema, the description could provide more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, failure conditions) to be fully complete.

  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% coverage with descriptions for both 'task_id' and 'checklist_id'. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Reopen a closed task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'close_task' and 'create_task' by defining the inverse operation.

  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 when a closed task needs to be reopened) but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives. It is not misleading but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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

• checkvist_list_checklistsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'for the authenticated user' and the ability to filter archived lists, which provides some context beyond annotations but is also present in the schema. No contradictions. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, but given the strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

  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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous information. It is concise yet informative.

  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?

  This is a simple list tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description adequately covers the main action and the optional archived filter. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but these are not essential for a straightforward 'get all' operation. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 both parameters (archived and skip_stats) are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning to 'archived' by mentioning 'filter for archived lists' but does not clarify 'skip_stats'. Since the schema fully covers both parameters, the description's additional value is minimal, consistent with 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 'Get all checklists for the authenticated user', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like checkvist_get_checklist by emphasizing 'all' versus a single checklist. The additional mention of filtering for archived lists adds further clarity.

  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 implies usage context: it is for listing all checklists, and the archived parameter is mentioned. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of checkvist_get_checklist for a single checklist') or any when-not-to-use guidance. The guidance is largely implied by the tool name and description.

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

• checkvist_get_tasks_paginatedA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds the chunking/pagination context and mentions avoiding size limits, but it doesn't disclose details like how the end of the list is signaled or any error 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (get all tasks in chunks) and immediately explains the usage pattern, earning every word.

  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 description covers the pagination concept and how to iterate, but with 5 parameters and no output schema, it lacks guidance on determining when the last page is reached and when/how to use compact modes. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

  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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'page numbers' but does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like compact, max_depth, or ultra_compact. It neither compensates nor detracts from 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 uses a specific verb 'Get ALL tasks in chunks' and clearly identifies the resource (tasks) with a pagination mechanism, setting it apart from siblings like get_tasks or get_task_tree. It explicitly states the page-based approach, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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 says 'Call multiple times with different page numbers to read entire checklist', providing a clear when-to-use pattern for reading all tasks in a checklist. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it gives enough context for the paginated use case.

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

• checkvist_get_notesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the 'all' scope (full collection), but does not detail return format, ordering, or potential pagination. This is modest additional context beyond annotations, hence a 3.

  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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states what the tool does and for which resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 read-only tool with two well-described parameters and informative annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit mention of the return structure, but the simplicity of the operation and the 'all notes/comments' phrasing make this a complete enough description.

  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 100% coverage, with both parameters described as 'ID of the task' and 'ID of the checklist'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as the relationship between the two IDs or any value constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('notes/comments') for a task, clearly distinguishing it from sibling note tools like create_note, update_note, and delete_note. It precisely states the tool's function without ambiguity.

  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 clearly implies the use case: retrieving all notes/comments for a given task. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the resource scope is specific enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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

• checkvist_get_taskA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context not in annotations: the response includes parent hierarchy and returns JSON. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's output without contradicting the 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?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific task by ID') and includes two relevant details (parent hierarchy, JSON return). No wasted words.

  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 read operation with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and return value format. It doesn't discuss optional with_notes behavior, but the schema covers that. The hierarchy note also addresses the most important non-obvious output detail.

  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% with each parameter individually described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 ('Get'), identifies the resource ('specific task by ID'), and adds distinctive context ('including its parent hierarchy'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_tasks or get_task_tree.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the 'specific task by ID' phrasing implies its use case. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage remains implied rather than clearly contrasted.

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

• checkvist_delete_taskA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructive intent, but the description adds the important behavioral detail that children are recursively deleted. This goes beyond the annotation and provides useful context for the agent.

  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 that communicates the action and its scope without any wasted words. It is optimally concise.

  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 delete operation, the description, combined with full schema coverage and the destructive annotation, is nearly complete. The cascade behavior is disclosed, and no output schema is needed for this type of tool.

  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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (task_id and checklist_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Delete' and the resource 'a task and its children', which distinguishes it from deleting checklists or notes. This precisely identifies the tool's function and scope.

  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 usage for deleting tasks (including subtasks) without explicit exclusions or alternatives. However, the context is clear given sibling deletion tools, so no misleading guidance is present.

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

• checkvist_get_checklist_statsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With annotations readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declaring safety, the description adds value by detailing the nature of the statistics (number of tasks, top-level tasks, average depth) and the intended purpose. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about what the agent can expect from the response, without needing to discuss destruction or side effects.

  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 and every part earns its place: the first sentence states the core function and examples of output, the second gives a clear usage directive. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no wasted verbiage.

  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?

  The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys what statistics are returned and when to use the tool. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the response, though it does not enumerate every possible statistic or the exact response format. For the tool's complexity, this is largely complete.

  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% since the sole parameter checklist_id has a clear description ('The ID of the checklist'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema fully documents the parameter and the description adds no extra nuance.

  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 ('Get statistics') and explicitly names the resource (a checklist) and the specific statistics returned (number of tasks, top-level tasks, average depth). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_checklist or get_tasks, and the phrase 'Use this first' reinforces its distinct role.

  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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this first to understand checklist size'), which is a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the context strongly implies it is the initial reconnaissance step before other checklist operations.

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

• checkvist_get_current_userA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with these. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, though 'authenticated user' clarifies the auth requirement. No contradictions; standard read-only behavior is implied.

  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 one succinct sentence that conveys purpose and context without filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

  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?

  The description is sufficient for a simple, no-parameter read-only operation, and the annotations provide safety context. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the returned profile information, though this is a minor gap.

  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 and the schema is fully covered. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail because there are none.

  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 is clear and specific: it states exactly what the tool does ('Get profile information') and for which resource ('the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all target checklists, tasks, or notes.

  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 when you need the authenticated user's profile information. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed since this is the only user-related tool among the siblings, making the usage context sufficiently clear.

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

• checkvist_get_tasksA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns 'raw JSON' and the 'complete JSON data structure', but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or response size limits. This is useful but not extensive, warranting a mid-range score.

  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 consists of just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every part adds value with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 has only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety context, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the output format. It lacks explicit details about response structure or potential pagination, but for a simple read tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

  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?

  Both parameters are fully described in the schema with clear descriptions ('checklist_id' and 'with_notes'). The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'all tasks' and 'complete JSON data structure', so it does not elevate beyond the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

  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 ('Get all tasks from a checklist'), the resource ('all tasks from a checklist'), and the output format ('raw JSON'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'checkvist_get_tasks_summary', which serves a different purpose.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use checkvist_get_tasks_summary instead for easier reading. Only use this when you need the complete JSON data structure.' This clearly names an alternative and specifies the condition for choosing this tool.

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

• checkvist_get_task_treeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output is readable text, includes subtasks, and can be large (implied by the max_depth tip). This helps the agent anticipate response characteristics and size management.

  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, direct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives a practical tip. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description at least states the output format ('readable text'). It covers the essential behavior and a practical size limitation tip. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so the description is adequately complete for a read-only tool.

  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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the max_depth parameter's purpose ('limit size'), but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'a specific task and its subtasks', which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and get_tasks (list). It also mentions the output format ('readable text'), further clarifying the tool's purpose.

  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: retrieving a task subtree in readable text. It also offers a practical usage tip ('Use max_depth to limit size'), which guides invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_task or get_tasks, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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

• checkvist_list_top_level_tasksA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is returned (IDs and titles) and what is not (subtasks), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or potential edge cases, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

  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, no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates scope and usage 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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how it differs from alternatives, and a recommended workflow. It could mention return format details, but 'IDs and titles' is sufficient for an overview tool. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

  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%: the only parameter, checklist_id, is described as 'The ID of the checklist.' The description does not add extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema already fully covers it. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: fetching only top-level task IDs and titles, explicitly excluding subtasks. It differentiates from siblings like checkvist_get_tasks and checkvist_get_task_tree by emphasizing the 'top-level' scope and 'ONLY' qualifier.

  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 usage guidance: 'Use this to get an overview, then use checkvist_get_task_tree to read each one individually.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and directs to the appropriate alternative for more detailed reads.

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

• checkvist_get_tasks_summaryA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context about output format (readable text), mode behaviors (preview auto-sets max_depth and compact), and default values, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently provides mode-specific usage tips. Every sentence contributes 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output format and the behavior of each mode. It covers all necessary usage scenarios, making the tool self-contained for an AI agent.

  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 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds usage context for preview and compact parameters based on checklist size, which enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic variable 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 tool retrieves tasks from a checklist in a readable text format. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (tasks/checklist), and the 'RECOMMENDED' marker distinguishes it from alternatives like get_tasks or get_task_tree.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use preview, compact, or default modes based on checklist size. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the conditional usage instructions are clear and actionable.

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