todo_list

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile, so the bar for the description is lower. It adds 'persistent workspace' scoping and says the filters are bounded, but it does not disclose ordering, matching semantics, or the structure of the returned todo items, leaving some behavioral detail to inference.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and no redundant or promotional material. Every phrase ('persistent', 'bounded', 'status/tag/text') adds information.

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?

With four optional parameters and no output schema, the description should say a bit more about call behavior and result shape. It gives the essential filtering concept but leaves default limits, match behavior, and the returned item fields unspecified; adequate but not 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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies the status, tag, and text/query filter dimensions, but the limit parameter is only hinted at by 'bounded' and no interaction semantics (e.g., whether filters combine) are stated.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('persistent workspace todos'), and the filter dimensions it supports ('status, tag, and text'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like todo_add and todo_update, which are mutation-oriented.

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 imperative 'List' gives a clear context: use this when you need to read or filter todos rather than create or update them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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