list_open_todos

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

The description discloses key behaviors: extraction is heuristic from markdown checkboxes and TODO/FIXME markers, works without API key or AI distillation, and each TODO includes a threadId. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or performance characteristics.

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 three well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and ordering, the second explains the extraction method and benefits, and the third provides follow-up guidance. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (TODOs with threadId) and advises fetching the thread for full context. It could mention if there is any default limit or pagination, but overall sufficient for a listing tool with rich sibling context.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds the ordering 'newest first' and mentions optional scoping to project or source, but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists unfinished TODOs/action items from past coding sessions, newest first, with optional scoping. The verb 'list' and resource 'open TODOs' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like complete_todo by focusing solely on listing.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (when the user wants to see open TODOs) and mentions that each TODO carries a threadId to fetch full context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives beyond the sibling name 'complete_todo'.

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