Signal not Noise

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect on the user's app, the nuanced destination logic (auto fallback, today failure, reserve always queues), and recurrence behavior (returns to top of reserve after completion). It doesn't explicitly mention side effects like list updates or error messages, but the disclosed behavior is thorough for a creation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is about five sentences, each contributing useful guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and invocation trigger, then details destination options and best practices. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and nuanced behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description focuses on input behavior, which is appropriate for a creation tool. It covers all destination cases, recurrence, and parameter guidance. It doesn't mention return values, but for a side-effect operation that is not critical. The sibling tools are clearly different, and the description gives enough to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the destination enum values' semantics, advises keeping titles 'short and actionable', and clarifies when to include criteria ('only add completion criteria when the task genuinely has sub-steps'). It also elaborates on recurEveryDays behavior. This extra context lifts the score above baseline, though not to 5 since notes and some edge cases remain schema-only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Add a task to Signal not Noise' and immediately explains the outcome ('it appears in the user's app'). It also specifies when to invoke it ('Call this when the user asks to add, capture or remember a task'), which differentiates it from the list-oriented siblings (list_reserve, list_todos).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit invocation triggers ('when the user asks to add, capture or remember a task') and provides detailed guidance on destination behavior ('auto' vs 'today' vs 'reserve') including the failure condition for 'today' when full. It also instructs on title style and when to include completion criteria, offering clear decision rules for parameter use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does so by using the non-mutating verb 'View', explaining order ('priority order'), and giving temporal context ('when the daily limit rolls over'). For a zero-parameter list operation, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence contributes meaning: one defines what the queue is, and the other gives the practical use case. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret its result: reserve items, priority ordering, and planned-beyond-today scope. It leaves some conceptual detail about the daily-limit rollover mechanism implicit but does not create a calling obstacle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-specific semantics are needed, and the description appropriately avoids inventing any.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb-resource pair: view the reserve queue. It also distinguishes this from list_todos by defining the queue's unique role (upcoming items in priority order that top the day back up to the daily limit).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear use case: 'Use this to see what's planned beyond today.' This is practical when-to-use guidance, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing the non-obvious side effect: reading the list may trigger the daily rollover just like opening the app. It could add more detail about what the rollover changes or the exact response shape, but the most important behavioral trait is covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource and packs in the list contents and default limit; the second earns its place by disclosing the rollover side effect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the list scope, default and configurable max, item fields, and a caveat about triggering rollover. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful value by enumerating what the returned items contain, even though no parameter semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('View') and resource ('today's focus list'), and goes on to specify what the list contains (completion state, progress, criteria). It is clearly distinct from add_todo and list_reserve, which are about adding and reserving rather than viewing the day's items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs today's focus list. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when list_reserve would be more appropriate, so it stays at minimum viable rather than providing strong routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.