The server defines 5 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern) and visible schemas. However, descriptions are minimal (10-20 chars), parameters lack depth, and there is no documented output schema. Tool definitions are explicitly registered in setupToolHandlers(), so they are not inferred. Error handling is present but generic. No input validation beyond type checking. The schema quality is moderate, all tools have JSON Schema with properties defined, but parameter descriptions are sparse and output structure is undocumented.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example for list_todos: 'List all todo items from the markdown file. Returns an array of todo objects with id, text, and completed status. Call this first to see available todos before updating or deleting.'
• Add parameter-level descriptions with constraints. Example for 'text' in add_todo: 'The todo item text (1-500 characters, plain text). Example: "Buy groceries"'
• Document output schema for each tool. Example: 'Returns: { todos: [{ id: string, text: string, completed: boolean }] }' for list_todos.
• Add a dry_run parameter to delete_todo and clear_completed. Example: 'dry_run (boolean, default false): If true, show what would be deleted without making changes.' This prevents accidental destruction.
• Enhance error messages with recovery guidance. Example: 'Todo with ID "abc123" not found. Call list_todos to see available IDs: ["todo-1", "todo-2"]'
• Document idempotency behavior. Add a note: 'Note: Repeated calls to add_todo with identical text will create duplicate todos. For idempotent upserts, use update_todo with a content hash.' Or implement deduplication.
• Consider adding a search_todos tool to allow filtering by text pattern, enabling agents to find todos before updating them.
• Add parameter validation with detailed rejection reasons. Current validation ('Text is required and must be a string') is minimal; expand to: 'Text is required, must be a non-empty string (1-500 chars), and cannot be only whitespace.'