List to-dos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the structured fields: the default filter (open tasks in active memos) and the by-memo grouping with per-task numbering. Pagination/limits are left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then defaults and narrowing options. No filler.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, defaults and output grouping adequately. Minor gaps remain around pagination/return size, but annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema itself; the description only gestures at the same filter dimensions and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (collect) and resource (task-list items, i.e. '- [ ] …') scoped across memos, and explains the output grouping and that each task carries a number used by set_task_status. This clearly separates it from search_memos and get_memo.

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?

Gives concrete defaults ('only open tasks from active memos') and enumerates the narrowing dimensions (keywords, tags, time range, space), plus an implicit hand-off to set_task_status. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct comparison to a sibling like search_memos, so it falls just short of a 5.

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