Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tasksB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral traits: 'bounded pagination' implies limit and offset are enforced, 'allowlisted sorting' indicates only specific sort fields. No contradictions with annotations. Additional context like rate limits or empty result behavior is missing.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every phrase adds value ('bounded pagination', 'allowlisted sorting'). However, it could be slightly expanded to include the status filter without losing conciseness.

  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 the output schema exists (documenting return structure) and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to mention the status filter, a key parameter. Pagination and sorting are addressed. Overall, a minor gap reduces completeness.

  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 description must compensate. It only mentions pagination and sorting in general terms, but does not specify the parameters (limit, offset, sort_by, sort_order) or the status filter. No parameter details or syntax are provided, leaving agents to infer from schema alone.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'tasks', with constraints 'bounded pagination' and 'allowlisted sorting'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task (single) and create_task/modify tasks. However, it omits mentioning the status filter parameter, which is a notable missing aspect.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for single record retrieval, use get_task). Siblings are listed but not referenced. Agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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

• create_taskA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tasks are validated, that an audit event is created, and that the operation is atomic, providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

  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 unnecessary words. Every element adds value, making it highly concise.

  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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core function and side effects (validation, audit, atomicity). However, it lacks usage context, which slightly reduces completeness.

  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?

  The description does not mention any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on parameter titles and constraints, which is insufficient for understanding how to construct valid input.

  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 'Create one validated task and its audit event atomically' clearly states the verb (create), resource (task), and additional context (validated, audit event, atomicity). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task or confirm_delete_task.

  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. Sibling tools include get_task, list_tasks, update_task, etc., but no criteria for selection are given.

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

• update_taskA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'only allowlisted fields' and 'optionally checking the observed version' provide context for field restrictions and optimistic locking. Annotations already indicate write and destructive nature, but description enriches with field semantics.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured by listing allowlisted fields, but overall efficient and front-loaded with core action.

  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 complex schema (6 params, 0% description coverage) and destructiveHint, description covers version checking but lacks detail on field restrictions, error handling, and side effects. Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but overall completeness is average.

  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 description must compensate. It mentions 'allowlisted fields' but doesn't enumerate which parameters are updatable. The 'expected_updated_at' parameter is hinted but not explained in terms of format or conflict behavior. Agent lacks sufficient detail to use parameters 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 the tool updates task fields and mentions allowlisting and version checking, distinguishing it from create/get/list/delete siblings. The verb 'Update' and resource 'task' are specific.

  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 (to update tasks) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools like create_task or confirm_delete_task.

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

• get_taskA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the identifier constraint. No mention of error handling, permissions, or response format.

  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, succinct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No extraneous 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?

  For a simple get-by-ID tool with a single parameter, annotations, and output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential use case, though it could optionally mention behavior on missing IDs.

  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 description mentions 'positive integer ID', which aligns with the schema's exclusiveMinimum:0, but adds no additional detail like format or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but offers minimal enhancement.

  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 specifies the action (Get), the resource (one task), and the identifier (positive integer ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (listing) and create_task (creation).

  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 when a specific task ID is known, but does not explicitly mention when-not to use it or suggest alternatives such as list_tasks for multiple tasks.

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

• prepare_delete_taskA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the token is 'short-lived', providing a behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations observed.

  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 extraneous words, efficiently conveying the core action and outputs.

  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 parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely adequate. It covers the primary purpose, but could hint at using the token with confirm_delete_task.

  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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the task_id parameter or its meaning. Although the parameter is implied by context, the description fails to add semantic value beyond the schema.

  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 returns the delete target and a confirmation token, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_task and confirm_delete_task. The verb 'return' and specific outputs convey precise purpose.

  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 use before confirm_delete_task but does not explicitly state when to use or not, nor mention alternatives. Usage context is derived from sibling tools rather than the description itself.

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

• confirm_delete_taskA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds context: it validates a signed, single-use token before deleting, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

  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 extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

  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 that an output schema exists (assumed to indicate result), and the tool is part of a clear workflow, the description is fairly complete. It could mention what happens on invalid token, but overall adequate.

  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 burden is on the description. The description does not elaborate on parameters like task_id or confirmation_token (e.g., format, where to get the token). Minimal added meaning beyond parameter names.

  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 action: 'Delete the confirmed task after validating its signed, single-use token.' It specifies the resource (task) and the precondition (validation), distinguishing it from siblings like prepare_delete_task or delete_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 implies the tool is used after a prepare step, as it mentions validating a 'signed, single-use token.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context from sibling names clarifies its role in a two-step deletion workflow.

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