resolve_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that resolved TODOs remain in history but no longer appear under Open Tasks, which is a useful side effect. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, failure handling, or any other behavioral constraints. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage context and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the post-resolution state. It doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., what if the TODO doesn't exist), but that is a minor gap for this type of tool. Overall, it's fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., todo_text matching is already in the schema). Since coverage is high, a baseline of 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 action ('Mark a previously recorded TODO as resolved') and the resource (TODO). It also ties to a specific origin ('open task from get_context'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like log_activity or update_memory.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when an open task from get_context has been finished.' This gives a clear trigger condition. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to get_context and the specific action provides enough context for selection.

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