iyke_todo_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, side effects, or output format. The description is minimal for a list operation given the absence of annotations.

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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action (list todos) and conveys defaults and filters efficiently. Minor improvement could separate defaults and filters more clearly, but overall concise.

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 no output schema, the description should mention what is returned (list of todo objects) but does not. It also omits details on ordering, default limit, or handling of edge cases (e.g., no todos). For a 4-parameter list tool with no annotations, completeness is low.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it names all four parameters (scope, status, tag, assignee) and explains their filtering role, it adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., format, constraints, relationships). The enum for status is already in the schema.

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 it lists todos, specifies the scope defaults to active project, and lists three filter options (status, tag, assignee). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like iyke_todo_create, iyke_todo_update, and iyke_todo_complete.

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 mentions 'defaults to active project' which provides context for when the scope parameter can be omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since there are no other list-todo siblings, the lack of explicit exclusion is acceptable.

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