todo_list_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only', confirming the annotations, and notes output shape similarity. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, permission requirements) are disclosed, but given strong annotation coverage, the description adds marginal value.

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 two sentences long, contains zero fluff, and conveys essential purpose and relationship. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, with output schema and annotations), the description covers the core operation. However, the lack of parameter description and missing usage guidelines or error conditions leaves minor gaps, making it borderline 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. However, the description only says 'by id' without explaining the parameter name (`list_id`) or its format. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema field name.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single Microsoft To Do list by id'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling `todo_lists` by noting the same shape as an entry from that endpoint, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool (to fetch a single list by ID) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit sibling relationship. The phrase 'Same shape as an entry returned by `todo_lists`' offers context but falls short of explicit usage rules.

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