list_personal_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that these tasks are independent of school submission status, but says nothing about archived-item handling or output shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and its scope. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but there is no wasted wording.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what is read and how it differs from coursework. However, it leaves the sole parameter and the default archive behavior unexplained, which is the one thing an agent must know to call 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?

There is one parameter, includeArchived, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no guidance on whether archived personal tasks are included by default or what the flag does, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('개인 할 일을 읽습니다' = reads personal to-dos) and scopes it as separate from school submission status, which meaningfully distinguishes it from the school/material-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clause '학교 제출 상태와 별개인' implies when this tool applies (personal items, not coursework submissions), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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