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 states this is a retrieval operation ('조회합니다'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and filtering capabilities. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from features.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and mentions filtering, but lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, or output format. For a read-only listing tool, this is the bare minimum needed for basic understanding.

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 description mentions that filtering by category or date is possible, which aligns with the two parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose as '일정 목록을 조회합니다' (retrieves a list of schedules/todos), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like create_todo or update_todo by focusing on listing rather than creating or modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_memos, which might be a similar listing operation for a different resource type.

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. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify when to choose list_todos over other tools like get_memo or list_memos, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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