待办列表

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries less burden, but it adds nothing behavioral: no default limit, ordering, pagination, or whether 已删除 items appear when no status filter is passed. It essentially restates the name plus the filter fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but its terseness comes partly from omitting information rather than from 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?

For a 6-parameter, zero-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: what is listed and what can be filtered. Missing are default/pagination behavior and return shape, which keep it short of full completeness.

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 only 33% (limit, keyword, category, projectId are undocumented in the schema), but the description at least establishes that status/category/priority/project/keyword are filter criteria. It says nothing about limit semantics, defaults, or whether filters combine with AND, so the coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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?

"列出待办" states a specific verb and resource, and the trailing filter list makes it distinguishable from the mutation siblings todo.create/update/delete. It does not explicitly contrast with other list tools (recurring.list, cats.list), but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 says what the tool does but never when to choose it over the many sibling list tools, nor any preconditions. An agent gets no routing guidance beyond the name.

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