Get To-Do Items

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the content type ('upcoming assignments and grading tasks'), but it does not disclose any additional traits like result limits, ordering, or potential exclusions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that directly states the action and scope. Every word adds value, and there is zero redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It could explicitly mention that it returns all to-do items or note any default ordering, but given the simplicity, this is minor. The description meets the needs 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that. The description does not need to explain 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource as 'the current user's to-do items', with concrete examples ('upcoming assignments and grading tasks') that help distinguish it from siblings like 'get_my_upcoming_assignments' or 'get_upcoming_events'. The scope 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_my_upcoming_assignments or get_upcoming_events. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the agent without decision support.

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