Three tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation, output schema clarity, and error handling. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (get_, create_) which is good. However, descriptions are minimal (10-50 chars), parameter descriptions are missing entirely for most inputs, and output schemas are not documented. The create-task tool accepts a generic 'token' object with no validation or description of expected structure. No error handling guidance, no pagination documentation for get-tasks despite accepting page/limit params. Schemas are present but incomplete, many parameters lack descriptions required by the rubric.

• Add descriptions to every parameter. For 'page' in get-tasks: 'Page number for pagination (1-indexed, default 1). Use with limit to fetch specific result ranges.' For 'tags': 'Array of tag strings to filter results. Returns only tasks matching all tags.'
• Document output schemas. For get-tasks, specify: 'Returns {tasks: [{id, title, content, tags, payer, ...}], total: number, page: number, limit: number}' so LLMs know what fields to expect.
• Expand tool descriptions to 80-150 chars. Example: 'Fetch a single gibwork task by ID. Returns full task details including title, content, requirements, tags, and payer address. Use when you have a specific task ID; use get-tasks to search or browse.'
• Replace the generic 'token' parameter with a documented schema. Define expected fields (e.g., 'token: {mint: string, decimals: number}') or accept a token_address string instead.
• Add error handling with recovery hints. Catch 'Failed to fetch' errors and return: 'Task not found. Verify the task ID is correct, or use get-tasks to search for available tasks.' Categorize as retryable vs user-fixable.