sync_todos

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'sync' without explaining whether it overwrites, appends, or merges data, or any side effects like schema creation. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise—single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. Still earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description lacks completeness. It omits critical behavioral details (e.g., error handling, idempotency, required sheet format) that an agent needs to use the tool 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 coverage is 100% with the 'todos' parameter described as 'TodoWriteの内容', which adds some context. However, nested item properties (content, status, activeForm) lack descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it synchronizes TodoWrite contents to SparkSheets, using a specific verb and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_handover or get_sheet_content, though could be more explicit about direction (push vs pull).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as whether it's for initial sync or update, or prerequisites like existing sheets. The agent is left without context for selection.

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