todos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that results are aggregated from two separate note sources and include commitment metadata. It says nothing about ordering, deduplication, limits, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the recency scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, if slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple aggregation read this is borderline adequate, but the undocumented `days` semantics and the absence of any safety or ordering context leave it short of 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 coverage is 0% for the single `days` parameter, so the description must compensate. "最近几天" loosely signals that a recency window exists, but it never ties that to the `days` parameter, its default of 7, or what the boundary means.

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 names a concrete resource (todos and commitments) and two specific sources (全时记 and 随口记), plus the attributes captured (who, what, when). It is clearly distinguishable from generic record tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 implies a recency window ("最近几天"), but offers no guidance on when to pick this over day_summary, list_records, or memories, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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