Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_commentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only search operation. The description adds the project-scoping behavior, but provides no detail on filtering semantics, limits' effects, or what is returned.

  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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits useful behavioral details, making it concise but not fully 'appropriately sized' for an agent.

  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?

  With five parameters, optional filters, no output schema, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, the description is too sparse. It does not explain search semantics, defaults, return shape, or when to prefer list_task_comments or search_tasks.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 40%, covering the two limit parameters. The required project_gids is understandable from its name, but task_text and comment_text have no description and the tool description does not explain how they are used, whether filters combine, or what matching logic 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 identifies a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('comments'), and a scope ('across selected projects'). This distinguishes it from list_task_comments, which implies per-task listing, though it does not fully explain the search criteria or differentiate it from search_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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The phrase 'across selected projects' hints at multi-project search, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from sibling names alone.

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

• get_attachmentB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. The phrase 'optionally rendering its image inline' adds a small behavioral detail tied to include_image, but the description does not clarify what the fetched attachment actually returns or what happens when inline rendering is false.

  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?

  One short sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the optional rendering behavior. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description must explain what the returned attachment actually is—binary content, metadata object, URL, or rendered inline image—but it leaves this ambiguous. It also omits prerequisites and error behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to carry more weight. It gives some meaning to include_image via 'rendering its image inline,' but attachment_gid receives no elaboration beyond the obvious 'which attachment,' and no value formats or constraints are provided.

  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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one attachment') and adds a distinct behavioral caveat about optional inline image rendering. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that target projects, tasks, or comments.

  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?

  There is no guidance about when to choose get_attachment over the sibling tools or what prerequisites apply, such as first obtaining the attachment_gid from a task. The only implied context is the resource name, which is not enough routing guidance.

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

• list_task_commentsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish safety. It adds the 'one task' scoping and 'comment stories' terminology, but does not explain pagination behavior beyond the schema's cursor field. No contradiction with annotations.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  A single sentence that front-loads the main functionality and limit constraint. There is no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

  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 read-only list operation with a simple schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it fails to explain cursor semantics and does not describe the returned comment story structure, which would be valuable given there is no output schema.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 33%: only limit is described. The description clarifies the purpose of limit and task_gid, but cursor is left entirely unexplained, which is needed for paginated listing. This is only partial compensation for the schema gap.

  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 specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('comment stories') scoped to a single task. It differsnciates from siblings like list_projects and search_coments because it is clearly per-task, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

  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 'for one task' implies the tool is for fetching a task's comment stream, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_comments or other sibling tools. The intended context is inferable but not stated.

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

• get_taskA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it ('Fetch' is read-only). The description adds modest context by mentioning that attachments are normalized, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like error cases, auth requirements, or how normalization works.

  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 with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the specific output scope efficiently.

  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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and output shape. However, it lacks parameter guidance, usage context, and any detail about how attachments are normalized or what 'detail fields' includes. The absence of an output schema makes this a more noticeable gap.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented task_gid parameter. It only implies that the task is identified somehow, without explaining that task_gid is the unique identifier or providing any format/source context. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond that.

  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 specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource and scope: one task's detail fields and normalized attachments. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tasks (search) and list_task_comments (comments only).

  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: use this when you need the detail fields and attachments of a single task, identified by task_gid. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as search_tasks or get_attachment, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

• search_tasksA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's word 'Search' aligns with that. The description adds the cross-project scope but does not disclose behavior like result ordering, pagination, or how filters interact. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

  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 tool's core purpose and key constraint. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

  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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It omits useful invocation details such as how search text and filters combine, what task fields are matched, and what the response contains. Still, the schema provides parameter names and the annotation confirms read-only safety, so the tool is callable with moderate confidence.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 17%, and the description itself adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond 'selected projects' pointing at project_gids. It does not explain text search semantics, the completed filter, assignee filtering, or modified_after behavior, all of which would help an agent use the tool correctly.

  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 a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('tasks'), and the key scope boundary ('across up to 25 selected projects'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task and search_comments 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description gives enough context to infer when to use this tool: when you need to find tasks across one or more selected projects. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the routing decision is left mostly to the agent.

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

• list_projectsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds the substring-matching behavior for 'text' and clarifies the limit operation, but annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or other operational details beyond the basic listing 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?

  One sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and parameters. The backtick formatting helps distinguish parameters from prose.

  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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core listing behavior but fails to explain the 'cursor' parameter (pagination) or that 'text' can be null to list all projects. This leaves an agent uncertain about full tool usage.

  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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'text' filters by project name and 'limit' sets the maximum projects, but it omits 'cursor' entirely and doesn't note that 'text' is optional or that limit defaults to 25.

  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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('projects'), and a filter criterion ('name contains text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on tasks, attachments, and comments.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool name and description: call it when you need a filtered list of projects. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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