todo_add

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but provide no further detail. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: todos are persisted to a specific file, survive restarts, and can be linked to learning observations. It does not fully describe the write mechanics (e.g., append vs. overwrite), but it goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action and persistence behavior are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable contextual benefit without redundancy.

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?

The description is useful but incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no output schema. It does not mention the required title parameter, explain how learning observations are linked, or describe what happens to existing todos. An agent would need to inspect the sparse schema or infer heavily before calling it correctly.

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 only 20%, yet the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain the required 'title', the meaning of 'priority', 'tags', 'description', or 'due_at'. The burden falls entirely on the schema, which itself is mostly undocumented for these parameters.

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 action ('Create'), a specific resource ('workspace todo'), and a concrete storage location ('.pilot/todos.json'). It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like todo_list and todo_update, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool by emphasizing persistence across restarts and linkage to learning observations, but it does not explicitly address when not to use it or name alternatives such as todo_update or learning_observe. The usage context is clear, but exclusions and alternative routing are left to inference.

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