List todos

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the optional status filter as a behavioral detail, but does not go beyond that with pagination, ordering, or result shape. Modest but adequate value beyond annotations.

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 one sentence with no filler: the action ('List todo items') is front-loaded, and the modifier ('optionally filtered by status') follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool, the annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists (per context), so the description does not need to explain return values. The optional filter is stated, and no critical operational detail, such as required parameters, is missing. The tool is fully callable from this definition.

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 0%, but the single 'status' parameter has a self-explanatory enum (all/open/done) and a default, which carries most of the meaning. The description contributes 'optionally filtered by status,' clarifying the parameter's role without elaborating on the values. This is minimum viable given the simple, self-descriptive schema.

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 verb and resource: 'List todo items,' and adds an optional filter by status. This unambiguously differentiates it from the sibling tools add_todo and complete_todo, which imply creation and mutation. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly frames the tool as the retrieval operation, making the use case obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling operations (add/complete) are unmistakably different actions. Clear context without formal exclusions.

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