preview_todoist_review_batch

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

The description explicitly states that the tool is 'Read-only and sends nothing,' clearly indicating no side effects. It also describes the return value: 'Returns the parent task and per-item subtasks with specific guidance.' Since no annotations are provided, the description fully shoulders the behavioral transparency burden and does so effectively.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, its read-only nature, and what it returns. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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?

While the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and return structure, it lacks important context: parameter details (especially the free-form 'options' object), prerequisite conditions (e.g., reliance on drift findings from detect_drift), and more precise output format. Without an output schema, additional detail on 'specific guidance' would be helpful. The description is adequate but incomplete for full understanding.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain 'as_of_date', 'options', or 'db_path'. It only indirectly implies that 'as_of_date' is used for 'the day's review items,' but lacks format details. 'options' and 'db_path' are completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Render the day's review items (drift findings) as a Todoist task + subtasks.' It specifies the action (render), the resource (review items/drift findings), and the output format (Todoist task + subtasks). The tool name and description align, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like enqueue_todoist_review_batch.

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 usage context by stating 'so the user can see the review batch before any write,' suggesting it should be used prior to write operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enqueue_todoist_review_batch), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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