List to-dos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is pagination behavior: pages hold up to 100 and next_cursor is passed back as cursor. That is concrete operational detail the annotations do not supply. It does not mention default page size (30) or what happens with an expired cursor.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the resource-and-fields summary front-loaded and the sibling pointer placed before the pagination note. The opening is a verbless fragment ('To-dos with project, priority...'), which is dense but slightly telegraphic.

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 six optional params, no output schema, and a read-only tool, the description covers filters, page size, and the pagination loop an agent must implement — enough to call it correctly. Missing only the `search` semantics and the default limit, both of which live in the schema.

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 67%; the description reinforces the status values (open, incomplete, complete), project scoping, and the cursor round-trip. However it never mentions the `search` or `limit` parameters, leaving the text-match behavior to a one-line schema description. Helpful but not a full compensation 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 and resource (returns to-dos) and enumerates the fields carried (project, priority, status, due date, assignees), then explicitly distinguishes itself from get_todo by naming that sibling as the single-record detail call. An agent can pick between list_todos and get_todo without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for narrowing (one project, one status, or only your assigned to-dos) and redirects to get_todo when the description and checklist are needed. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that keyword search is available via `search`, or which call to prefer when the user wants both a list and details.

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