get_todo

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns null if the todo does not exist, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers input identification and the null case. For a simple get-by-id tool, this is sufficient, though a note about error handling could enhance completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to the `todo_id` parameter. It says 'by its Things id' but does not explain the format, source, or how to obtain a valid ID. This minimal addition does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 retrieves a single to-do by its Things ID, and indicates it returns null if not found. This distinguishes it from list_todos (retrieves all), search_todos (search-based), and get_inbox/get_today (filtered views).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like search_todos or list_todos. Usage is implied (when you have a known ID), but no when-not-to-use or context about prerequisites.

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