todo_get

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

The description says the tool 'Read[s]' a todo, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning the operation is not read-only. Nothing in the description explains this discrepancy or any side effect. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 with no filler; the returned fields are enumerated compactly right after the verb and resource.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload, which partially compensates. However, it leaves the annotation contradiction unexplained and does not document two of three parameters, so an agent lacks full context for correct invocation.

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 only 33%: todo_id and include_comments have no schema descriptions. The description's 'optionally comments' loosely maps to include_comments, but it says nothing about todo_id or the sensitive project_id override parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (read) and resource (one todo) and enumerates the returned content: body, blockers, blocked-by, comments. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling todo_list by scoping to a single item, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as todo_list. The single-item scope hints at usage, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to listing or updating.

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