Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mark_as_doneB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('mark as completed') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it updates a status field, adds a timestamp, triggers notifications, or has side effects like archiving. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence serves a clear purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 (a mutation with 4 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'completed' means, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'todo ID' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already covers (e.g., format details or usage tips). This 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb ('mark as completed') and resource ('todo item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'add_todo' and 'list_todos' by focusing on completion rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'remove_todo' in terms of action outcome.

  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 provides basic usage context ('when the user wants to complete a task'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'remove_todo' for deletion instead of completion. The guidance is present but lacks depth for optimal decision-making.

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

• list_todosB
  3.3/5.0
  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. While it mentions filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters including authentication-related ones, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and basic usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured to separate usage context from filtering options.

  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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters including authentication-related ones and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the authentication parameters (postgresUrl, connectionId, authToken) at all, nor does it describe what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

  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 description mentions filtering by 'completion status, category, or priority' which maps to the first three parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('todos'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_todo' or 'remove_todo' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping list functions that might exist in other contexts.

  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 for when to use this tool ('when the user wants to see their todos') and mentions optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for basic decision-making.

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

• remove_todoB
  3.3/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'removes' a todo item, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like authentication needs (implied by 'authToken' parameter), database dependencies, or potential side effects (e.g., permanent deletion). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

  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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Provide the todo ID') is somewhat redundant given the schema's clear documentation, slightly reducing efficiency.

  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 (destructive mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, database connections, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable invocation in a real-world 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'Provide the todo ID' for the required parameter, but doesn't explain the semantics of optional parameters like 'postgresUrl' or 'authToken', nor does it clarify their interrelationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Remove a todo item') and resource ('from the list'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_todo' and 'list_todos' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'mark_as_done' for task completion alternatives.

  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 for usage ('when the user wants to delete a task'), which helps guide the agent. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use vs. 'mark_as_done'), and no prerequisites are mentioned despite multiple optional parameters in the schema.

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

• add_todoB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is for adding items, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements (implied by authToken parameter), potential side effects (e.g., database writes), error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core action and follows with context. While slightly verbose in listing parameters, each sentence serves a clear purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and error conditions that would be needed for robust agent 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?

  The description lists the key parameters (title, description, category, priority, due date), which adds some semantic context beyond the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly, including technical ones like postgresUrl and connectionId. The description provides minimal additional value over what's in the schema.

  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 ('Add a new todo item') and resource ('to the list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a creation tool rather than listing, marking, or removing tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'list_todos' or 'remove_todo' by name.

  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 for when to use this tool ('when the user wants to create a new task or reminder'), which helps the agent understand the appropriate scenario. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'use list_todos for viewing instead').

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