list_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bares the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'list within one scope' and does not explain that it is read-only, that the default filter is 'open', whether results are ordered, or how severe the payload concerns are. This lack of behavioral disclosure can surprise an agent expecting all to-dos regardless of status.

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 an eight-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or repetition; given that the detailed parameter schema complements it, the not length is appropriate and every word is meaningful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return shape, and the parameter schema covers field specifics. However, the description is very thin: it does not tell the agent when to pick this over search_todos, does not mention default status behavior, and leaves the read-only nature and notable payload risks (which are only described at the parameter level) hidden from the synopsis.

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 100%, with each of the 6 parameters having a clear description and (for the fields) a default value. The tool description adds nothing to the parameter semantics, but the rich schema already carries enough weight for this dimension.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Things 3 to-dos') with a scope constraint ('within one scope'), so it is far from a tautology. It communicates what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_today or search_todos.

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 phrase 'within one scope' implies that this tool is best when targeting a particular list/area/project, and the include_notes parameter description products to get_todo() for fetching notes. However, the tool description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or cautions about when to prefer search_todos or other siblings, so the main guidance is implied rather than stated.

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