All three tools have empty input schemas (no properties defined) and minimal descriptions (10-40 chars). No parameter documentation, no output schemas, no error handling guidance. Tools are inferred from route registration rather than explicit schema definitions. This server fails basic definition quality standards across all dimensions.

• Add explicit input schemas to all tools with typed parameters. For todo_write, define required fields (e.g., title: string, description?: string, priority?: enum). For todo_list, define optional filters (e.g., status: enum, limit: integer 1-100).
• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters. Example: 'request_user_input' → 'Request user input during workflow execution. Pauses the workflow and prompts the user for a response, then resumes with the provided input.'
• Document output schemas for each tool. E.g., todo_list returns {items: [{id, title, status, created_at}], total_count, next_cursor}.
• Add error handling guidance. E.g., 'If todo_write fails with "duplicate_title", try todo_list to find existing items. If status is invalid, use one of: pending, in_progress, completed.'
• Define parameter constraints in descriptions. E.g., 'limit (integer, 1-100, default 20): Maximum items to return per page.'