gsd_add_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (capture as todo) but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or reversibility. For a tool that presumably mutates a todo list, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and what input it takes. The sibling context helps disambiguate, and the description is sufficient for a basic add operation. However, a note on where the todo gets stored or how it integrates with the conversation context would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'description' is documented as 'Todo description'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Capture') and identifies the resource ('idea or task as todo') and scope ('from current conversation'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like gsd_todo_complete (which completes a todo) and gsd_check_todos (which lists todos).

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 it: when you want to preserve an idea or task from the current conversation as a todo. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using gsd_todo_complete for marking items done or gsd_check_todos for reviewing existing todos.

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