get_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return format. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires no side effects, or any other behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits.

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, consisting of one sentence and a return example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words. Every part is relevant.

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 tool with no parameters and simple output, the description adequately explains what it returns. It could mention that the data is computed by Canvas, but the context signals suggest it is sufficient for the simple nature of the tool.

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 zero parameters, earning a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none are needed.

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 it returns 'Canvas-computed todo items (assignments needing action)'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'todo items' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_assignments or get_all_upcoming, leaving the agent to infer the 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 implies the tool is for retrieving assignments that require action, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_assignments for all assignments, get_calendar_events for events). No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned.

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