todo_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description does add real behavioral detail about ordering (undated last, high importance first). It omits the significant default that only open todos are returned, plus any mention of the limit/pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the most surprising rule (undated last) leads. Nothing to trim.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers sorting but not the default open-only filter or the 50-item limit, both of which materially affect what an agent gets back. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 60%, with enums carrying their own inline descriptions for order, range, and importance. The description adds ordering meaning the schema lacks (the "order" param only says "Date order"), but says nothing about the status default or the limit parameter, leaving the filtering behavior undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("todos") plus the sort semantics, so the action is unambiguous. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling todo_search, which is the obvious ambiguity an agent would face here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call todo_list versus todo_search, nor any mention of the default status filter that shapes the result set. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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