Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• setup_teamB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool auto-discovers additional data beyond inputs, but it omits critical safety information such as whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be run multiple times, or if it requires special permissions. A more complete description would address these points.

  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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One-time team setup') and then provides additional context. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, though breaking into two sentences could improve readability.

  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 tool with two required string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main intent and what happens (auto-discovery). However, it leaves gaps such as what the tool returns, error scenarios, and whether the setup can be repeated. With no output schema, a brief note on expected results would improve 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?

  The schema already describes both parameters (teamName and emails) with 100% coverage. The description adds little extra meaning beyond restating the inputs and explaining the auto-discovery behavior, which is not parameter-specific. According to the guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly elevate it.

  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 purpose as 'One-time team setup' with specific inputs (team name and emails) and outputs (auto-discovery of GitHub usernames, Jira accounts, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sprint_retro or get_capabilities, which have different functions.

  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 that this tool is for initial team setup only, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely, but the description lacks explicit guidance on usage context or prerequisites.

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

• get_capabilitiesA
  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 must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether this operation has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. However, the tool is likely read-only and simple; the description is minimally adequate.

  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 that is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and specifies three categories of information. 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 tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description should explain what is returned. It lists three components but lacks specifics (e.g., format of config status, how credential status is indicated). For a simple tool, this might be sufficient, but more detail would improve completeness.

  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?

  Tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 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 function (Returns) and the resources (available tools, team config status, credential status). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (setup_team, sprint_retro, sprint_review) by being a read-only information tool.

  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. It does not specify that it is a diagnostic tool to be called before other operations, nor does it mention any disclaimers. Sibling tools have different purposes, so differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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

• sprint_retroA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses auto-detection of active sprint, which is behavioral context. No annotations exist, so description carries burden, but does not explain error handling or permissions. Adequate for a simple read-only report 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by trigger phrases and auto-detection. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

  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 no output schema, the description hints at report content (merge time, completion rates, Jira metrics) but does not specify return format or error cases. Reasonably complete for a straightforward report 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 single parameter 'sprintName' is described as optional with auto-detection, which adds value beyond the schema's limited description. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage and minimal additional semantics.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  Clearly states the tool generates a sprint retrospective report with specific metrics (merge time, completion rates, Jira metrics). Distinguishes from siblings like sprint_review by focusing on retrospective analysis.

  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?

  Provides explicit trigger phrases ('sprint retro', 'retrospective', etc.) and notes auto-detection, giving clear guidance on when to use. Lacks exclusion criteria but is otherwise helpful.

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

• sprint_reviewA
  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 must cover behavioral traits. While the action is clearly read-only (review, no modification), the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, lacks rate limit or permission info, and does not describe any 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a usage note. Every piece of information is relevant and efficiently communicated, with 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage hints, and parameter behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or any error conditions, which might be helpful for an 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?

  The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (sprintName). The description adds extra context beyond the schema by noting it is optional and that the tool auto-detects the active sprint if not provided, which adds semantic value.

  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 purpose: 'Review current sprint progress with deliverables, risks, and developer status.' It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it's a 'mid-sprint health check,' distinguishing it from sprint_retro (likely end-of-sprint).

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description explicitly lists common user queries that trigger this tool, such as 'sprint review' and 'sprint status.' However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different contexts.

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