Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_taskC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'Create a new task,' implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new task') and specifies the context ('in a ClickUp list') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and what the tool returns. For a create tool with 5 parameters and significant implications, the description should provide more context to aid the agent effectively.

  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 documented in the input schema (e.g., 'list_id' as ClickUp List ID, 'due_date' in Unix timestamp). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

  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 ('Create') and resource ('new task in a ClickUp list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' or 'update_task' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from other potential creation tools beyond the ClickUp context, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task' or other task management operations. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing list), exclusions, or typical scenarios for task creation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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

• get_taskC
  2.9/5.0
  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 this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behaviors like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external data.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., task fields, status, assignees), error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

  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%, with the single parameter 'task_id' documented as 'ClickUp Task ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format examples, where to find the ID, or validation rules), so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenlightening parameter documentation.

  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 ('Get details') and resource ('ClickUp task'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_tasks' (which likely retrieves multiple tasks), leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tasks' or 'create_task'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID) or contextual factors that might influence tool selection.

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

• get_tasksC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only (implied but not explicit), rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of tasks). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 has parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only confirmation, return format), usage differentiation from siblings, and any mention of limitations like the max limit of 100. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

  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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval from a list, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

  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 ('tasks from a ClickUp list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task' (singular vs. plural) or specify scope (e.g., all tasks vs. filtered), which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task' (singular) or 'create_task'. The description implies retrieval but lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid list ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• update_taskC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loading the essential action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return values or error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or constraints, but this meets the baseline since the schema handles 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing ClickUp task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'get_task' beyond the basic action, missing explicit comparison.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_task' for new tasks or 'get_task' for viewing. The description assumes context without explaining prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for updating tasks.

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