Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• show-taskA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and 'app-only' hints at access restrictions. Still, it does not clarify authentication requirements, error behavior, or what 'detailed information' includes, which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

  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. Every word contributes to either the operation, the target resource, or the usage context, and it is easy to scan.

  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 required parameter, fully described in the schema, and the description gives the purpose and app context. The lack of an output schema makes the return format ambiguous, but for a basic singular-task lookup the definition is reasonably 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%, so the schema already documents taskId and its example format. The description adds little beyond 'specific task', which weakly maps to the taskId parameter but provides no additional meaning or usage details beyond 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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific task'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools, but 'specific task' signals a singular lookup versus broader task visualization/polling.

  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 'app-only, used by the visualization UI' provides contextual guidance about intended usage and implies it is not for general-purpose agent calls. However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer show-task over poll-tasks or visualize-tasks, leaving some routing decision to inference.

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

• visualize-tasksA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and runtime behavior. It says 'Opens a visual app,' which implies a long-running or interactive process, but does not state whether it is read-only, blocking, requires a display, or how it terminates. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or resource implications.

  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 with no filler; the main action and scope are front-loaded and the second sentence adds concrete detail on what the visualization shows. Every word 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?

  For a zero-parameter visualization tool, the description covers what it shows and how it is presented, but it omits usage conditions relative to sibling tools and behavioral details like whether the app runs asynchronously or requires user interaction. With no output schema or annotations, these gaps leave an agent without enough context to fully anticipate the tool's runtime profile.

  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, so schema coverage is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 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?

  Description states a specific verb ('Visualize'), a specific resource ('Beads task graph'), and the output form ('interactive DAG'), and names the content (dependencies, status, progress). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like poll-tasks and show-task, which are about individual task polling/detail.

  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 when to use it (when you need a graph-level view of task dependencies and progress), but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools such as poll-tasks or show-task, nor states when those alternatives would be more appropriate. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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

• poll-tasksA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. 'Poll' and 'refresh' imply a non-mutating read of current task data, and 'app-only' is a useful access constraint. However, it does not disclose output format, polling mechanics, potential side effects, or whether it returns a snapshot vs. a change set, leaving some ambiguity.

  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. The main action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds the necessary contextual constraints without bloat.

  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 zero-parameter app-only polling endpoint, this is largely complete: it states what data is returned, who should use it, and why. It does not explicitly describe the response shape or any refresh semantics, but the low complexity and absent output schema make that a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

  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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage and zero parameters, so the description has no parameter behavior to document. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter information is missing.

  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 ('Poll') and resource ('current task data'), and clarifies that it is app-only and exists for visualization UI refresh. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools in purpose, though it does not explicitly name them or contrast directly.

  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 'app-only, used by the visualization UI for refresh' gives a clear usage context and implicitly excludes general-purpose task querying or one-off viewing. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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