Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_active_tasksB
  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. It mentions the tool lists tasks and returns a dict with tasks or error, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes an 'active' task. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting efficiently. Each sentence adds value, though the omission of 'project_id' in Args slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates well for parameters but lacks output details (only mentions 'Dict containing list of tasks or error message'). For a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, it's adequate but incomplete, especially regarding behavioral context and output structure.

  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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'project_name' filters by project name as an alternative to 'project_id', provides examples for 'filter_string' ('today', 'overdue', 'p1'), and specifies the default for 'limit' (50). However, it omits 'project_id' from the Args section, creating a minor inconsistency.

  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 ('tasks from Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'list_completed_tasks' by specifying 'active' in the tool name, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'alternative to project_id'), suggesting when to use certain filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'list_completed_tasks' or 'create_task'. No clear when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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

• create_taskA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly indicates this is a write operation ('Create'), explains the priority mapping system in detail, and mentions the return format ('Dict containing the created task details or error message'). However, it doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, priority mapping, args, returns) and every sentence adds value. The priority mapping explanation is necessary but slightly lengthy. Overall efficient with minimal waste, though could be slightly more concise in the priority explanation.

  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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, detailed parameter semantics, return format indication, and priority system explanation. The main gaps are lack of error handling details and authentication context, but overall it's quite 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.

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets clear explanations of purpose, optionality, format expectations (e.g., 'natural language like "tomorrow"'), and the priority mapping table adds crucial context not inferable from the schema alone.

  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 specific action ('Create a new task') and resource ('in Todoist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_active_tasks and list_completed_tasks which are read operations rather than creation operations. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  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 through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'optional' flags), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools beyond their different functions.

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

• list_completed_tasksA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the default time range (last 24 hours), default limit (30), and maximum limit (200), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no tasks match criteria.

  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 well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter explanations, and return value description. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about the dict structure. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool.

  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 read operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. It lacks details about authentication, error handling specifics, and exact return structure, but given the tool's relative simplicity and the parameter documentation provided, it's mostly complete.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters. It clarifies that project_name is optional and for filtering, specifies ISO format and timezone context for since/until, explains the default and maximum values for limit, and provides usage guidance about when to omit since/until 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 clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('completed tasks from Todoist'), and scope ('within a timespan'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'list_active_tasks' by specifying 'completed tasks' and provides temporal context that differentiates it from 'create_task'.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context about when to use default behavior ('Prefer not to provide `since` and `until` if you want to pull tasks from the last 24 hours'), but doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_active_tasks' or 'create_task'. It offers guidance on parameter usage but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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