Task Passport defines 4 tools with clear, domain-specific purposes and well-structured schemas. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (list, open, new, checkpoint). Descriptions are substantive (80-180 chars) and explain WHEN to use each tool. Input schemas are properly typed with required fields marked. Output schemas are documented. However, parameter descriptions lack depth, most are 1-2 sentences without format constraints, ranges, or examples. Error handling is absent from tool definitions; no guidance on what happens on conflict, missing passport, or version mismatch. System prompt provides context but does not substitute for tool-level error recovery hints. Composition is sound: tools chain logically (list → open → checkpoint). No security issues detected (no secrets in params). Overall: solid domain modeling, but parameter documentation and error guidance fall short of A-grade standards.

• Add format and length constraints to parameter descriptions. E.g., 'current_state: Free-form text (max 500 chars) describing the current world state. Defaults to "not started" if omitted.'
• Document error cases and recovery paths for each tool. E.g., 'If passport_id not found, call task_passport_list to discover the exact id. If version conflict on checkpoint, reopen the passport and merge changes manually.'
• Expand output schema documentation. Explain what 'compiled_context' and 'handoff_prompt' contain and how the LLM should use them in downstream reasoning.
• Add per-parameter type hints and examples where helpful. E.g., 'goal: One-sentence objective (e.g., "Implement user authentication for the mobile app").'
• Specify result limits and pagination strategy for task_passport_list. E.g., 'Returns up to 100 passports. If more exist, implement pagination via offset/limit parameters.'