group_todos_by_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. The phrase 'group by various criteria' gives no insight into behavior beyond the basic function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action and examples of grouping dimensions. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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 groups TODOs, which is a complex operation, but there is no output schema and no description of the return value or grouping output structure. The description omits critical details like how criteria are applied, what the grouped result looks like, and whether it affects data. Incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 zero parameters, which would normally score a baseline of 4. However, the description mentions criteria (file paths, priority, ownership) that seem to imply selectable parameters, yet none exist. This creates confusion about how grouping is configured, lowering the score.

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 groups TODOs and lists criteria such as file paths, priority, and ownership. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_todos (scanning) and explain_todo (explaining). However, the tool name mentions 'topic' but the description's criteria do not explicitly include topic, creating slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_todos or explain_todo. The description only states what the tool does, with no context about suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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