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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't mention whether this creates a persistent record, what happens on duplicate titles, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

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 maximally concise - a single clear sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and gets directly to the point.

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 that the tool has comprehensive schema documentation (100% coverage), clear annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the minimal description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but the structured data provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (title requirements, optional description, priority enum values, date format, tags constraints). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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 'Add a new todo item' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('todo item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_todos' (plural) or 'update_todo', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_todos' (plural), 'update_todo', and 'complete_todo', the agent has no indication whether this is for single todo creation versus batch operations, or whether it should be used for initial creation versus updates.

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

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent operation, which the description aligns with by implying creation ('Add'). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, batch size implications (e.g., partial failures), or what happens on success/failure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Add multiple todo items') and specifies the batch mechanism ('in one call'). There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's moderate complexity (batch mutation), rich input schema (100% coverage), annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on batch behavior (e.g., atomicity, error handling) and doesn't leverage the output schema to hint at return values, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties (title, description, priority, dueDate, tags). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, merely restating the batch concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('multiple todo items'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in one call'). It distinguishes from the singular 'add_todo' sibling tool by emphasizing the batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'list_todos' or 'delete_todos'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch addition is preferred over the singular 'add_todo', nor does it address prerequisites, error handling, or any contextual constraints for batch operations.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation) and idempotentHint=true (safe for retries). The description adds minimal behavioral context by implying a status change, but it doesn't disclose details like whether this toggles status, sets a specific value, requires authentication, or has side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral insights.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral nuances, or how it differs from siblings. With annotations and output schema handling some structured info, the description meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies the tool operates on a todo item without specifying how (e.g., via ID), but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 'Set completion status for a todo item' clearly states the action (set completion status) and resource (todo item), but it's vague about what 'completion status' means (e.g., marking as done vs. toggling) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_todo', which might also handle status updates. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name/title.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing todo), exclusions (e.g., not for creating todos), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_todo' that might overlap in functionality. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by mentioning 'supports dry-run', which is not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: true). This provides practical behavioral insight, though it could elaborate more on effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the action and a key feature ('supports dry-run'). Every word earns its place with no wasted information.

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's complexity (destructive operation with no parameters) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and a useful feature, though it could benefit from more context on when to use versus siblings.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description does not need to add parameter details, but it implies a todo item is targeted, which aligns with the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a todo item'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_todos' (plural) and 'complete_todo'. It directly addresses what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 for deleting a single todo item, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_todos' (for multiple items) or 'complete_todo' (for marking as done). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the safety limit (default limit=10) and the requirement for at least one filter, which are not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as 'Delete' aligns with destructiveHint=true.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints (filters, safety limit). Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (destructive bulk operation with 8 parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It adds important behavioral context (filter requirement, safety limit) but could benefit from more explicit guidance on alternatives or error handling, though the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning the safety limit and filter requirement, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete multiple todos') and scope ('matching filters'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'delete_todo' which likely deletes a single todo. It specifies bulk deletion with filtering, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 for when to use it ('requires at least one filter') and mentions a safety default ('defaults to limit=10 for safety'), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'delete_todo' or other sibling tools. It implies usage through filtering but lacks explicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds value by specifying capabilities like filtering and pagination, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some context without contradictions.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('List todos') and succinctly lists capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (11 parameters) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers core functionalities but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings. With output schema handling return values, the description's gaps are minor, warranting a 4.

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 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description mentions filtering, search, sorting, and pagination, which aligns with parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('todos'), and specifies the capabilities ('with filtering, search, sorting, and pagination'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_todo' or 'complete_todo', which would require a 5. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools (e.g., 'add_todo' for creation, 'complete_todo' for updates). Usage is implied by the name 'list_todos', but no explicit context is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds value by mentioning 'search and tag ops' which suggests this tool might have search capabilities and tag operations beyond basic field updates. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing fields not mentioned in updates.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the phrase 'supports search and tag ops' is ambiguous and doesn't clearly earn its place in such a brief description - it creates confusion rather than adding clarity.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 0 parameters (minimal complexity), and annotations covering basic behavioral traits, the description is somewhat complete. However, the mention of 'search and tag ops' creates confusion about what this tool actually does versus siblings, and the empty parameter schema contradicts the implied capabilities.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description adds context about 'search and tag ops' which suggests this tool might have implicit parameters or capabilities not reflected in the empty schema. However, this is somewhat confusing given the empty parameter 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 states the tool updates fields on a todo item, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'complete_todo' or 'add_todo' - the mention of 'search and tag ops' is vague and doesn't clarify what makes this tool unique.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'complete_todo' or 'add_todo'. The mention of 'search and tag ops' is ambiguous and doesn't provide clear context for tool selection. The description lacks any when/when-not statements or alternative recommendations.

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