anon_get_todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: project-membership authorization and the fact that projectId is inferred from the API key, which prevents the agent from inventing a projectId argument. Pagination and result shape remain unstated.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with what the tool does, then prerequisites, capabilities, and the endpoint/auto-project note. No redundant filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, filter/sort capability, and the auto-determined project scope. Missing pagination/limits and default sorting behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.

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 description summarizes the available filter/sort dimensions (category, assignee, status, sort), reinforcing what the schema's nested properties expose and signaling that these are optional query modifiers. It does not spell out the 'order' direction argument, so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (待办/todos) and even names the backing endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from write siblings like anon_post_todos or anon_patch_todos_todo_id. The scope (list, with filter/sort) is unambiguous.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('需项目成员身份') and the supported operations (filter/sort), which tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it names no alternative (e.g., anon_get_todos_template_export) nor any exclusion condition, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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