List todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the scope of 'authenticated user's todo items' but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or response format, so it adds limited extra value beyond the annotations.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the verb and resource with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has 8 parameters including filters and pagination, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not mention available filters (type, state, action), pagination controls, or the shape of the returned data, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions example todo types (assignments, mentions, review requests) that map to action enum values, but leaves project_id, type, and state parameters unexplained.

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 'Lists the authenticated user's todo items' with specific types (assignments, mentions, review requests), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_list_events.

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 provides clear context: it lists the authenticated user's todos, which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a self-evident list tool this is acceptable.

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