todo_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by stating that archived todos are excluded by default, include_archived=true retrieves them, query matches title/body/slug, and is_blocked=false finds dispatchable work. It does not mention return shape or pagination behavior, but the key behavioral quirks are surfaced.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact that an agent needs. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 list tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important filtering behaviors but omits meaning for several parameters and does not describe the returned summary fields or default pagination. The schema's enums and standard parameter names reduce the risk, making this minimally adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is only 11%, so the description must compensate for most parameters. It explains query, is_blocked, and include_archived, but leaves tags, limit, offset, status, and priority without any added meaning. The project_id parameter is covered by the schema's own description, but the majority of parameters are underspecified.

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 action and resource: 'List todo summaries.' It also adds useful scope by explaining what fields the query matches and the archived exclusion behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like todo_get, though 'summaries' hints at a list-vs-detail 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 when to use the tool: to list todos, find dispatchable work with is_blocked=false, and search by query. It provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer an alternative sibling tool or when not to use it, leaving some routing to the agent's inference.

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