get_todo

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

The description explicitly states the key sentinel behavior: 'Returns null if it does not exist.' With no annotations available to carry read-only safety hints, the use of 'Get' also signals a non-destructive operation. This is sufficient additional behavioral transparency for such a simple getter.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first defines the action and target, the second clarifies the return behavior for a missing ID. There is no repetition or filler, and the key information is properly front-loaded.

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 a single parameter, a simple resource type, an output schema already available, and a short clear description that covers the null behavior, the tool definition contains everything an agent needs to correctly select and invoke it. Sibling tools add surrounding context without complicating this interaction.

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 provides only a string type with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is the Things to-do ID, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Yet it does not mention how that ID is obtained or what string format is expected, leaving some room for further clarity.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Get a single to-do by its Things id.' This distinguishes it from sibling list-based tools like list_todos, get_today, and search_todos, since it targets exactly one item based on an identifier.

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 strongly implies one should use this tool when a specific to-do ID is already known, and there is nothing about fetching collections. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as list_todos or search_todos, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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