todo_list_cards_from_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: parsing markdown with specific format (## headers, - bullets), generating PNG images, optional printing with thermal printer, and priority handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool with file I/O and printing capabilities.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: parsing details, output format, printing control, priority handling, and an example. While efficient, the example section is slightly lengthy but still informative.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well by explaining parameters, behavior, and output (list of PNG paths). The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, for a tool involving file parsing and printing, more context on error cases or dependencies would improve 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'file' as a path to a markdown file relative to current directory, and 'no_print' as a boolean controlling printing behavior with default value. The example markdown format further clarifies input expectations, adding significant value beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('generate', 'print', 'parse') and resources ('task cards', 'markdown file', 'PNG images'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'print_only' (which only prints) and 'task_cards_from_notion' (which uses a different source) by specifying markdown parsing and optional printing.

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 this tool (parsing markdown files with task lists) and implies when not to use it (e.g., for Notion-based tasks or printing-only operations). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'task_cards_from_notion' or state exclusions, keeping it at a 4.

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