Export a project's to-do template for reuse, with the API key identifying the project. Requires project membership; supports millisecond offsets from the project anchor time.
导出待办模板。需项目成员身份。offset = 原时间字段 − 项目锚点时间（毫秒，可为负）。 GET /api/projects/{id}/todos/template/export 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the membership/auth requirement, which is real added context, but the offset definition ("offset = 原时间字段 − 项目锚点时间") reads like template/field semantics and is not clearly tied to this zero-parameter GET, adding ambiguity rather than clarity.
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?
It is short and front-loads the purpose, then the auth requirement, then the endpoint. The offset sentence is of questionable relevance for a parameterless export and could be trimmed, but the overall structure is tight.
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 simple, read-only, zero-parameter export with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, auth requirement, and the fact that the project is inferred from the API key. The main gap is not describing the export's format/contents, but annotations and simplicity keep this acceptable.
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 tool takes zero parameters (empty schema, no required fields), so per calibration the baseline is 4. The description's offset formula does not correspond to any input parameter, so it neither helps nor meaningfully harms parameter understanding.
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 states a specific verb+resource ("导出待办模板" / export todo template) and clarifies that the project is auto-determined by the API key, which distinguishes it from tools that take an id. However, it never names its natural counterpart anon_post_todos_template_import, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
It gives a prerequisite ("需项目成员身份" / requires project membership) and states that no projectId needs to be passed, which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no reference to the import sibling that would complete the export/import pairing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.