Server defines 9 tools with clear verb-noun naming (write_memory, read_memory, search_memory, start_mission, update_status, read_mission, handoff, report_activity, get_secret). All tools have descriptions (10-100 chars, baseline 194 chars). Input schemas are visible with typed parameters and descriptions. However, output schemas are not documented, critical for LLM planning. Parameter descriptions are minimal (10-30 chars vs baseline 72 chars). No error handling guidance, no enum constraints, no pagination support for list operations. Security concern: get_secret accepts a 'name' parameter but no validation or rate-limiting is evident. Tool composition is reasonable but lacks idempotency guarantees and confirmation patterns for destructive ops (handoff, update_status).

• Document output schema for every tool. Example: start_mission returns {mission_id: string, created_at: ISO8601, status: string}. This enables LLM to chain tools and extract IDs.
• Add enum constraints to status parameter in update_status. Replace 'The new status (e.g. pending, in_progress, completed)' with 'One of: pending, in_progress, completed, failed, archived'.
• Expand parameter descriptions to 50-100 chars. Example: 'query' → 'Semantic search query (e.g., "authentication bugs", "deployment issues"). Returns up to 10 most relevant facts.'
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. Example: 'If secret not found, returns 404 with available secret names. If rate-limited, returns 429 with retry-after header.'
• Implement confirmation pattern for handoff and update_status. Add optional 'confirm' parameter or return {status: 'pending_confirmation', confirmation_token: '...'} requiring a second call to commit.