memory_create_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a memory with an auto-assigned tag 'memora/todos' and returns the created object. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data), permissions required, or limitations like rate limits. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single-line summary followed by a clear bullet-style list of parameters and a returns note. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers all parameters and return value comprehensively. However, it lacks guidance on usage context relative to siblings and potential error conditions. Given the output schema exists, the description is mostly complete but could include a note on when to prefer this over memory_create.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, valid values, and defaults. For example, it clarifies that status can be 'open' or 'closed', priority can be 'high', 'medium', 'low', and provides category examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 'Create a new TODO/task memory.' It specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'TODO/task memory', distinguishing it from siblings like memory_create_issue (for issues) and memory_create_section (for sections). The parameter list further clarifies that this is for task management.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_create or memory_create_issue. While the name and parameter list imply it is for TODO tasks, there is no guidance on context or exclusions. An agent might need to infer usage from 'TODO' in the title.

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