Six tools with clear verb-noun naming and mostly complete schemas. Descriptions are present and substantive (avg ~150 chars), exceeding the 10-char minimum. All tools have typed input parameters with descriptions. However, output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict what fields to expect from responses. Error handling is minimal; no recovery guidance or actionable error messages. Parameter relationships (e.g., mode routing logic) are documented but could be clearer. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) despite clear risk distinctions (WRITE vs READ_ONLY). Composition is sound, tools chain well (create_task → claim_task → get_task) and avoid duplication.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify fields, types, and structure. E.g., create_task returns {id: number, title: string, status: 'pending'|'in_progress'|'done', created_at: ISO8601}.
• Add tool annotations to schema: readOnlyHint=true for list_tasks/get_task/get_next_task/predict_mode; destructiveHint=true for create_task/claim_task (they modify state).
• Add error handling: return {error: string, code: 'not_found'|'invalid_mode'|'conflict', recovery: string}. E.g., 'Task not found. Call list_tasks() to see available tasks.'
• Enumerate valid 'mode' values in create_task schema as an enum (code, advanced, orchestrator, ask, plan, review, refactor, devsecops) rather than free-form string.
• Document list_tasks pagination: add 'limit' default (20), max (100), and clarify sort order (priority DESC, created_at ASC). Return {tasks: [...], total: number, has_more: boolean}.