list_todos

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

No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It only states it returns a list, which is obvious from the tool name.

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 concise but uses a paragraph format with args and returns. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning. No wasted words, but readability could improve.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description explains return fields. It covers all parameters with valid values and default behavior. Missing error handling or pagination, but for a list tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% coverage, the description adds significant meaning by listing allowed values for scope_type and scope_name, explaining built-in lists, and clarifying the status filter options. This compensates for the schema's lack of 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 it lists to-dos within one scope, specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'to-dos'. The mention of 'scope' differentiates it from siblings like search_todos and get_todo, but it does not explicitly exclude other list-like siblings (e.g., get_inbox, get_today).

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 versus alternatives like search_todos or get_inbox. The description implies usage by specifying scope parameters, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion statements.

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