mcp-todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the sorting behavior ('최근 수정순으로 정렬됩니다' - sorted by recent modification), which is valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no memos exist.

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 extremely concise - just two short Korean sentences that directly state the core functionality and sorting behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a key behavioral detail.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers the basic purpose and sorting behavior, which is sufficient for a simple list operation. However, for a tool without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the return format looks like or any limitations.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the action ('조회합니다' - retrieve/query) and resource ('메모 목록' - memo list), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_memo' (which likely retrieves a single memo) or 'list_todos' (which retrieves todos instead of memos).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_memo' (for single memo retrieval) or 'list_todos' (for todo lists). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, access requirements, or contextual constraints that would help an agent choose appropriately among the available memo/todo tools.

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