todoist_get_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it returns 'a formatted string containing the list of tasks,' which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and parameters well, but without annotations, it lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., safety, limits). The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is adequate with clear room for improvement.

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% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by explaining both parameters: 'project_id' as 'Optional project ID to filter tasks by project' and 'filter_string' as 'Optional filter/query string (e.g., "today", "overdue", "#work").' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, including examples for filter_string, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of tasks from Todoist'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like todoist_get_task (singular) and todoist_get_projects, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations beyond the optional filters mentioned.

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 through 'optional filters' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_get_task (for a single task) or todoist_get_projects. It provides some context for filtering but lacks clear 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.