mnemosyne_todo_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals refusal conditions, the count of blocking tasks, that the host will not pick a destination, that original lists are permanently protected, and how the daemon vs app affects availability. This goes well beyond a generic 'manage' statement.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and all subsequent sentences carry high-value behavior or refusal information. No filler or repetition of schema content. Despite its length, every sentence 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 moderately complex tool with one nested parameter, three operation types, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: operations, exclusions, refusal behavior, environment prerequisites, and scope. It even hints at the response ('you are told how many are in the way'). Nothing needed to call it correctly seems missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics, notably that passing an empty string on an original list restores its localised default name, and that the host picks the next swatch when color is omitted. It does not deeply elaborate every parameter, but the schema already handles those details.

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?

Opens with a specific resource ('LISTS of the human's To-do backlog') and enumerates the concrete operations: create, rename/recolour, remove. It also explicitly separates itself from mnemosyne_todo_update, making the tool's scope unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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?

States exactly when this tool is appropriate vs mnemosyne_todo_update ('change the shape of someone's workspace rather than the work in it'). Provides detailed pre-call conditions: lists containing tasks are never removed, original lists can be renamed but never removed, and environment requirements for dev vs npm installs. All conditions are actionable.

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