get_todo_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'paginated' but fails to disclose pagination behavior (e.g., how pages work, default values, response structure). Schema covers parameters but description adds no behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with key information ('History semua task (paginated)'), and contains no wasted words. It is concise and to the point.

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 high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain return format or pagination details, leaving gaps in completeness for a paginated list tool. Moderate overall.

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% and parameter descriptions are detailed (date format, enum for status, defaults for page/limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieving all task history with pagination. It uses a specific verb (implied 'get') and resource ('task history'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_today_todos' (today's tasks) and 'get_todo_detail' (specific task detail).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for historical data but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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