things_list_todos

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that the tool is in beta. It says nothing about return format, ordering, pagination, completeness, or what happens when Things 3 is unavailable.

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 single sentence is truncated mid-word, leaving an incomplete enumeration of list names and no closing clause. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description should at minimum be a complete statement of what is returned, but it stops mid-sentence. The beta marker and the list enumeration are the only substantive content present.

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 schema declares zero parameters at 100% coverage, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description implies selecting "one built-in list (inbox, today, anytime...)" despite there being no such input in the schema. That unresolved mismatch between prose and schema is the main deduction.

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 and resource ("Lists to-dos of Things 3") and narrows the scope to a single built-in list, which distinguishes it from things_list_areas and things_list_projects. The sentence is cut off mid-word at "logb...", so the scope statement is never finished.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as things_list_projects or things_list_areas, and no mention of prerequisites like the Things 3 app being available. Any usage context is only implied by the enumerated list names.

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