check_tasks

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

Discloses fuzzy matching and that it checks completion status. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on behavior for non-existent tasks or multiple matches, but adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), description covers key aspects: purpose, matching behavior, typical use case. Could mention return format but not essential.

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?

Only one parameter 'names' with 100% schema coverage. Description reinforces fuzzy matching but adds limited new semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it checks whether specific things have been done, with fuzzy matching. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_todos and list_todos by emphasizing the checking intent.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: when user mentions something they said they'd do and want to see if it's on the list and ticked off. Provides example usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context with siblings implies it.

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