agent_execute_todo

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It states execution with an optional 'verify gate' but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or what happens on failure. The behavioral context is thin.

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 a single sentence with 15 words, very concise. While it lacks structure (no separate sections), it is front-loaded and efficient, earning a 4 for minimal wasted content.

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 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and many siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain 'verify gate', 'approved/planned', or how to choose 'todo_id'. Too sparse for the complexity.

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 coverage is 83% (5 of 6 params have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema does most of the work.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('todo') with context ('approved/planned', 'agent loop'). It clearly indicates the tool's primary action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'agent_plan' or 'apply_patch'.

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 mentions 'approved/planned' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., agent_plan, verify). No when-not or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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